IEEE T-ITS Submission Process

First decisions are review-driven and typically take several months, with multi-round major revision normal for accepted papers. The journal publishes no time to first decision; as an unofficial planning estimate, not a journal figure, a paper that clears the format and scope checks often sees a first decision in 3 to 5 months, while edge cases diverge: an out-of-scope manuscript can be returned in a week or two, and a paper waiting on hard-to-find ITS reviewers can run longer.

If you want an outside read before you open the Author Portal, use the free manuscript readiness check to test whether the ITS method is clearly the contribution.

Initial Quality Check: format and scope before routing

The first layer is administrative but still decisive. IEEE says submissions that do not follow the target journal's guidelines can be delayed or rejected without review. The T-ITS page calls for the IEEE double-column single-spaced format, an abstract of 150 to 250 words, keywords from the journal's lists, and a citation of prior work for conference extensions; its software rejects papers with overlap above 40 percent, and articles are screened for plagiarism before acceptance. A manuscript can look finished in the portal and still be weak if the abstract and introduction do not make the intelligent-transportation-systems contribution the visible center before an Associate Editor reads it.

Editorial Assignment: routing by ITS topic

T-ITS uses Associate-Editor routing by topic. An editor assigns the manuscript to an AE whose expertise matches the ITS area (traffic modeling and control, connected and autonomous vehicles, V2X, transportation sensing, or AI and machine learning for transportation), and the title, abstract, and keywords should make that area obvious. A paper framed as broad transportation research can be routed to the wrong reader or returned as a better fit for Transportation Research Part C.

Peer Review: AE-managed ITS assessment

Manuscripts that clear the administrative and scope checks move to expert reviewers selected by the Associate Editor. T-ITS uses single-blind peer review, and reviewers assess not only correctness but whether the ITS method, system, control, or model is novel and whether the evaluation reflects a realistic transportation setting.

Final Decision: the ITS-method bar stays live after reports return

Even after review, the decision turns on whether the intelligent-transportation-systems contribution meets the journal's bar. A technically sound paper can receive a major revision or a reject if the reports show the ITS method is thin, the evaluation is weak, or the work fits a sister venue.

This is where T-ITS differs from fast-decision journals. After initial screening, an editor assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor, and the AE owns the review from reviewer selection through the recommendation.

At assignment and through review, the implicit questions are:

• is the technical intelligent-transportation-systems method, system, or model the clear center of the contribution?

• does the evaluation reflect a realistic transportation setting, dataset, or testbed rather than a toy example?

• is the work genuinely in T-ITS scope rather than broad applied transportation research that fits Transportation Research Part C?

Because review is reviewer-paced, a paper can sit Under Review for two to three months without anything being wrong. The signal to watch is the stage, not the wait.

First-round acceptance is uncommon. The normal positive outcome is major revision, and the revised paper is re-reviewed, with reviewers checking whether each point was addressed substantively. Authors who treat the response letter as careful, point-by-point engagement, with new experiments where reviewers asked for evidence, move through revision faster.

• Reject (administrative or fast): a return on format, scope, or routing caught before or early in review. Re-route to Transportation Research Part C or a sister IEEE venue, or rebuild the ITS contribution.

• Reject after review: the reviewers concluded the ITS contribution does not meet the journal bar. Consider a sister venue or a substantially revised resubmission.

• Major revision: the normal positive outcome. Substantive concerns, usually about method novelty, evaluation realism, or scope. Respond point by point with new evidence.

• Minor revision or accept: uncommon on the first round; usually follows a strong major-revision response.

Four recurring patterns slow otherwise-capable T-ITS manuscripts in or before review:

• Broad transportation research aimed at T-ITS. The work is applied or policy-adjacent transportation research that fits Transportation Research Part C, with no technical ITS method at its center.
• A thin intelligent-transportation-systems contribution. A generic machine-learning or sensing paper is labeled ITS without a genuine transportation-systems advance.
• An over-length or off-format manuscript. The paper runs more than six pages past the suggested length or ignores the IEEE format, which IEEE says can delay processing or lead to rejection without review.
• A conference extension without a new contribution. An IEEE ITS conference paper is submitted with too little new journal content to justify the longer format.

Check whether your T-ITS contribution centers a technical ITS method →

Check if your evaluation reflects a realistic transportation setting →

Check whether your manuscript meets the T-ITS format and page-limit check →

This guide tells you what T-ITS editors and reviewers look for; the review tells you whether your paper passes that bar. 60-day money-back guarantee; authors retain all rights and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

In our pre-submission review work on IEEE T-ITS submissions, three patterns account for most of the manuscripts that draw a hard major revision or an early return, before the engineering is in question. Each shows up first in the abstract and introduction, where the Associate Editor reads before inviting reviewers, so the most useful pre-submission step is to test the draft against all three: the framing, the evaluation package, and the intelligent-transportation-systems-scope argument the T-ITS review turns on.

The ITS method is not the visible center

We repeatedly see T-ITS manuscripts where the abstract and introduction describe a transportation problem and a generic method, without making the intelligent-transportation-systems contribution the clear center. Because the Associate Editor must route and champion the work, an ITS advance that is buried reads as broad transportation research. The fix we push is to make the specific ITS method, system, or model, and why it matters for transportation, legible in the abstract and the contribution list.

The evaluation does not reflect a realistic transportation setting

A related pattern is a sound method evaluated on a toy example or a single synthetic scenario, without a realistic traffic dataset, testbed, or deployment context. T-ITS reviewers screen for evaluation realism because the journal publishes transportation-systems work, and we treat a realistic evaluation and current baselines as a relevance prerequisite rather than an optional strengthening.

The work belongs in a sister or adjacent venue

The third pattern is a manuscript whose real center is broad applied transportation, vehicular electronics, or communications, framed as ITS to target the journal. An Associate Editor recognizes the mismatch quickly, and it leads to a return or a slow routing problem. We push authors to test the contribution honestly against T-ITS, Transportation Research Part C, and sister IEEE journals before submission, because the right venue on the first try saves months.

T-ITS (JIF 8.4, intelligent transportation systems) sits among several adjacent venues, and the scope check is partly a routing decision:

• choose Transportation Research Part C for broad emerging-transportation-technology or policy-adjacent applied research

• choose IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology for vehicular electrical and electronics or wireless-vehicular work

• choose IEEE Transactions on Communications for a communications-centered contribution

• stay with T-ITS when the work is a technical intelligent-transportation-systems method, system, or model

Last verified June 2026 against the IEEE T-ITS author pages and IEEE author guidance. Editorial timing varies and the journal publishes no single headline figure; treat any range as a planning estimate and confirm current timing through the IEEE Author Portal before you submit.

T-ITS wants the transportation problem to lead. A generic model tested on traffic data is the usual mismatch. Check my abstract against IEEE T-ITS and the nearer options.