Journal of Open Technologies in Geophysics (JOTG) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and impartiality of the scholarly evaluation.

1. Review Model

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind review, in which:

• The identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers.

• The identity of the reviewers is concealed from the authors.

This ensures an unbiased and objective review.

2. Initial Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial team to assess:

• Relevance to the journal's scope.

• Completeness of the submission.

• Adherence to ethical and scientific standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be desk-rejected without external review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Their publication track record.

• Expertise matching the manuscript’s topic.

• Absence of conflict of interest.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:

• Originality and significance of the research.

• Technical soundness and methodological rigor.

• Clarity and coherence of presentation.

• Relevance to the field of geophysics and open technologies.

• Adequacy of references and prior work acknowledgment.

Each reviewer submits a recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

5. Decision and Revisions

Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept as is.

• Minor Revision, to be reviewed by the editor only.

• Major Revision, requiring another round of review.

• Reject, due to insufficient contribution or serious flaws.

Authors are given a deadline to submit revisions and are expected to respond point-by-point to each reviewer’s comment.

6. Final Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor after considering all reviews and revised submissions. The decision is communicated to the authors with constructive feedback.

7. Review Timeline

JOTG is committed to timely review and strives to complete the review process within:

• 7 days for initial editorial screening.

• 21–28 days for the peer review process.

• 14–21 days for author revisions (depending on the revision type).

However, complex papers may require longer review periods.

8. Confidentiality and Ethics

All submissions and reviews are treated confidentially. Reviewers are expected to:

• Not share or use unpublished content.

• Declare conflicts of interest.

• Maintain professionalism and objectivity.