Our definition of a complaint is as follows:
• The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint.
• We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published (which happens every day) but thinks that there has been a failure of process – for example, a long delay or a rude response – or a severe misjudgement.
• The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of the Transporttech and content or process.
Transporttech journal are aware of the complaints stated below:
• Authorship complaints
• Plagiarism complaints
• Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers.

• If the Journal receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal break intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies or otherwise unlawful materials.
• Investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims.
• The Journal will make a good faith determination whether to remove the allegedly wrongful material.
• All the investigations and decisions are to be documented by the Journal.
• We strive to ensure that International Journal of Transportation Research and Technology is of the highest quality and is free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen.

The Managing Editor and staff of Transporttech will make every efforts to put matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible, we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.

Complaints about editorial content should be made as soon as possible after publication, preferably in writing by email to: transporttech@naa.edu.az

Authors can appeal the paper’s decision. However, if so, it may be a quicker way to consider submitting the paper to a different journal.

The author can appeal if the journal has offered specific suggestions and is willing to accept the author’s updated submission. However, the Editor can request another manuscript submission through the journal’s online submissions system if the appeal finds a meaningful baseline.

The authors must explain why the author disagrees with the editorial decision and give any new data or information at the author’s request. Please remember that the authors should not duplicate the previous manuscript’s content.

The author will need to address the editors’ concerns. The author needs a succinct response to every reviewer and editor’s comment. Reviewers may misjudge the author’s study. Provide evidence to dispute the assessment. Avoid emotional appeals if there is any suspect reviewer prejudice. Again, the author must explain their subject with a counter bias with reasoning and statistics.