[Skip to Content]

Instructions  |  LaTex Template  |  Frequently Asked Questions for Authors  |  Committee Guides 
 Reviewer Guides  |  Senior Program Officer Guides  |  Annual Meeting Homepage

Instructions For Authors

Paper Review Schedule

May: Call for Papers opens (not required for paper submission)

June 1: Submission site opens

August 1: Submission site closes

August 15–September 15: Paper review

October 1–30: Paper decisions sent

*Please note that you do not need to begin a submission to gain access to the TRR.
Please click here for futher instructions.*


2024 TRB Annual Meeting Presentation
Submission Requirements:

  • If you are using Large Language Models (LLMs) or Generative AI for your paper, refer to the guidelines below.
  • File Format: PDF
  • All papers must be submitted in English
  • Include a title page with title, authors, affiliations, and word count
  • Include all coauthor names, affiliations, and email addresses
  • ORCiD numbers are optional, but encouraged
  • Tables and figures should be embedded in the text, near the text that discusses the item
  • 8.5x11 page with normal margins
  • The title should have the first letter of each word capitalized, except for conjunctions, prepositions, and articles
  • Font: Times Roman font, 10 pt size or larger
  • Single spaced
  • Single column
  • Line numbers are required (restart numbering on each page)
  • Page numbers are required
  • Manuscript Length: The length of each paper, including the abstract, text, acknowledgments, references, and tables, must not exceed 7,500 words. Each table counts as 250 words. Papers not meeting this requirement may be withdrawn from the peer review process at any time. Abstract (250 words max). 
  • References should be numbered and called out in numerical order in the text
  • Supplemental Material/Appendices are not permitted in TRB Annual Meeting papers.

View Sample Paper.

We reserve the right to withdraw papers:

  •  In excess of 7500 words, excluding figures
  •  Figures and Tables not embedded in text
  •  Requiring extensive language editing
  •  Missing coauthors in the submission system

Fragmented or Redundant Publication: The TRB Annual Meeting does not have any limits on the number of submissions that can be submitted or published by an author. However, the following bullet points outline situations where the Committee may choose to desk reject a paper if the research does not make a substantial contribution on its own or otherwise seems to be broken into pieces or redundant.

  • Breaking a single piece of work into many papers that are derived from the same or similar hypothesis dilutes the information and makes it difficult for reviewers and readers to assess the advances that may have been made.

  • A TRB Standing Committee may desk reject papers with similar hypotheses, methodologies, or results.

  • A TRB Standing Committee may desk reject papers that are redundant in that there is significant overlap between papers.

  • Papers submitted for review should stand on their own; papers submitted as Part I, Part II, etc., will not be accepted for review.

  • We recommend combining unpublished papers before submitting them to the TRB standing committees if they are drawn from the same basic research question.

  • The TRB follows guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics. Please refer to the following case study on “Salami Publication.”

View additional Criteria for Desk Rejections.

Go to the TRBAM Editorial Manager site to start a submission.

Usage of Large Language Models/Generative AI in Papers

Authors: If you are considering using a large language model [(LLM), e.g. ChatGPT] or Generative AI to help prepare your manuscript for submission to TRBAM or TRR, you must comply with the following statement from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics):

• Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

Specifically, authors are required to:

1. Clearly indicate the use of language models in the manuscript, including which model was used and for what purpose. Please use the methods or acknowledgements section, as appropriate.

2. Verify the accuracy, validity, and appropriateness of the content and any citations generated by language models and correct any errors or inconsistencies.

3. Provide a list of sources used to generate content and citations, including those generated by language models. Double-check citations to ensure they are accurate and properly referenced.

4. Be conscious of the potential for plagiarism where the LLM may have reproduced substantial text from other sources. Check the original sources to be sure you are not plagiarizing someone else’s work.

5. Acknowledge the limitations of language models in the manuscript, including the potential for bias, errors, and gaps in knowledge.

Please note that AI bots such as ChatGPT should not be listed as an author on your submission.

About the Review Process:

The TRB Annual Meeting peer review process is used for all presentations submitted to TRB’s Annual Meeting. The process is organized by TRB’s standing technical committees under the supervision of TRB staff. A minimum of two reviews is required for a decision to be made on a submission for presentation.

Papers submitted for Presentation and Publication will first go through the TRB Annual Meeting peer review process described above. The committee entering the decision will come to two conclusions. First, a decision will be made on if your paper will be accepted or rejected for presentation in the annual meeting. They will also make a recommendation on if your paper should be reviewed for publication by the TRR Editorial Board. If so, the TRR Editorial Board will perform additional steps of review and come to an independent publication decision. The publication decision may or may not match the decision you received for presentation due to the different scopes of each reviewing body.