Peer review is a vital part of the scholarly publishing process. Reviewers provide independent expert assessments that help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts sent for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use any part of the work for personal advantage. All materials should be treated with the highest level of confidentiality by the decision on the manuscript is made. After the review processes are completed, the names of reviewers and the review editor will be shown on the printed paper.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must immediately notify the editorial office of any conflicts of interest, including:

    - Personal or professional relationships with the authors

    - Financial interests in the subject matter

    - Competitive research under preparation

If such conflicts may compromise impartiality, the reviewer should decline the invitation; this is requested during acceptance of the invitation, without completing such information on the relationship with authors, the system does not allow the reviewer to evaluate.

Timeliness and commitment

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to invitations. If unable to complete the review within the specified period, the reviewer should notify the editorial office immediately and request an extension. Review deadlines are typically set at 3–4 weeks for each manuscript at the first evaluation step. The second step may take about 1-2 weeks.

Objectivity and constructive feedback

Reviews must be impartial, evidence-based, and constructive. The reviewer’s tone should be respectful and professional. Criticism should focus on the scientific merit of the work, not the authors. Inappropriate, offensive, or vague remarks will not be accepted.

    While the article is being peer-reviewed, if it is determined that the article review editor or reviewers do not have relevant expertise or have a conflict of interest, the reviewer and article review editor will be cancelled by the chief/associate editors and replaced with new ones.
    Suppose editors or reviewers request authors to write inappropriate citations of their own published articles or the journal. In that case, the duties of these reviewers and article editors will be canceled and replaced with new ones during the article review.

Evaluation criteria

When assessing a manuscript, reviewers are asked to consider the following aspects:

    Originality: Does the study address a novel question or provide new insights?
    Scientific soundness: Are the methods robust, appropriate, and adequately described?
    Clarity of presentation: Are the results presented clearly, with proper use of figures, tables, and supplementary data?
    Validity of conclusions: Do the data support the conclusions?
    Relevance: Does the study contribute to advancing knowledge in the field?
    Ethical standards: Have ethical approvals, patient/animal consents, and data transparency been adequately addressed?

Structure of the review report

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports clearly and systematically, typically including:

    - A summary of the manuscript and its main contribution

    - General comments on strengths and weaknesses

    - Specific, numbered points addressing methodology, results, discussion, and references

    - Recommendations for improving clarity, rigor, or interpretation

Recommendations to the editor

After all steps of manuscript evaluation, i.e., preinteractive and interactive steps, reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation, choosing from:

    Accept – suitable for publication without significant changes
    Minor revision – requires small corrections, but overall acceptable
    Major revision – requires substantial revisions, possibly additional data or analyses
    Reject – scientifically unsound, flawed, or outside the scope of the journal

Editors approve the article for publication after reviewers determine it is publishable.

    If it is determined that the peer review process complies with the journal's quality standards and the concerns of the referees and the review editor are addressed, the article is ready for publication.
    If an article does not meet the publication criteria and standards at any stage before publication on the journal's website, or if third parties raise concerns about the structural integrity of the research or peer review process, the journal's editor-in-chief will investigate. Regardless of the stage of the article, appropriate action will be taken promptly.
    The journal's editors-in-chief have the right to request further manuscript revisions, additional expert review, and override acceptance or rejection after an editorial decision has been made on an article.

Reasons for rejection

Regardless of the stage of the article, rejection may occur at any stage of the manuscript evaluation. It does not matter whether before or after the publication of the manuscript.

    - The presentation and language of the article are not of sufficient quality to warrant effective and rigorous peer review.

    - The article is not original and does not comply with the journal's publication policy because it is a repetition or copy of previous studies.

    - Significant, unacceptable, objective errors in the study design, data collection, and/or analysis methodology used.

    - The study does not comply with internationally accepted standards for research on humans or animals and violates ethical policies outlined in privacy protection guidelines.

    - Authors have not complied with the rules specified in our guidelines to be authors of the article, fabricated data that does not exist, or falsified existing data and manipulated images.

    - The selection of references used in the article is clearly biased, particularly reflecting citation cartels, self-citation, geographical preference, and school of thought, and does not reflect current knowledge about the article.

    - The article lacks a valid research question or hypothesis, or explores a question that does not exist.

    - Articles may also be rejected if authors do not respond to reviewers' correction requests for 21 business days or use an offensive or derogatory tone when communicating with editorial board members/publishing office.

Ethical responsibilities

Reviewers should:

    - Report suspected ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate submission, data manipulation) to the editor.

    - Do not use unpublished data for their own research.

    - Maintain integrity, confidentiality, and professionalism always.

Recognition of reviewers and the review editor

The Roads journals have a single anonymized evaluation model. To acknowledge the contribution of reviewers, the journal will provide the names of the review editor and reviewers on the front page of the published article.