Peer Review Process

The Journal of Geothermal Research and Volcanology (JoGRaV) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every manuscript submitted to JoGRaV undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the field of geothermal sciences and volcanology. In the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the evaluation process to ensure impartial and objective assessment.

The peer-review process in JoGRaV consists of the following stages:

1. Submission of Manuscript

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system supported by Open Journal Systems (OJS). In special circumstances, submissions may also be accepted via official editorial email. All submissions must follow the journal’s Author Guidelines and formatting requirements.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editorial Office conducts a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript. At this stage, the manuscript is checked for:

  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope

  • Compliance with formatting and structural guidelines

  • Basic scientific quality and clarity

  • Ethical standards and completeness of required sections

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected before peer review. All manuscripts that pass this stage are screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) to assess similarity levels.

3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality, novelty, and scientific contribution. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable in terms of scope, quality, or significance may be rejected at this stage without external review.

4. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The handling editor identifies and invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in geothermal science, volcanology, geophysics, geochemistry, tectonics, or related disciplines. Reviewers are selected based on academic competence, research alignment, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Because JoGRaV applies a double-blind review process, manuscripts are sent to reviewers anonymously, and reviewer identities remain confidential.

5. Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers assess their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest before accepting or declining the invitation. If a reviewer declines, they may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

6. Review Process

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript, focusing on:

  • Originality and scientific contribution

  • Methodological rigor and data quality

  • Interpretation and validity of results

  • Clarity of presentation

  • Relevance to the field

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor evaluate the reviewers’ reports before making a decision. If reviewer opinions differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide further assessment.

The editorial decision, along with anonymized reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author.

8. Revision by Authors

If revisions are requested, authors must respond to each reviewer comment and submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, particularly in cases of major revision. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor.

9. Final Decision and Publication

Once the manuscript satisfies the reviewers and editors, it is formally accepted. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copy-editing, layout formatting, and final proofreading.

All accepted articles are published online in open-access format and are freely available for download in PDF format.