Credibility Assessment of an Emerging Open-Access Medical Journal Using the LMU Journal Evaluation Tool: A Structured Self-Assessment of the Georgian Medical Journal with Comparison Across Five Evaluation Frameworks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66636/gmj.v1.i2.a87Keywords:
open access, journal quality, LMU rubric, journal evaluation, Georgian Medical Journal, DOAJ, Think.Check.Submit., COPE, predatory publishing, editorial transparencyAbstract
Background The growth of open-access (OA) publishing has intensified the need for transparent, reproducible journal quality assessment. Self-assessment using standardised tools is an emerging practice in responsible editorial governance.
Objective To conduct a structured, publicly documented self-assessment of the Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) in its inaugural year using the LMU Journal Evaluation Tool as the primary instrument, supplemented by parallel assessment against four additional international frameworks, and to establish an annual quality baseline.
Methods The LMU Journal Evaluation Tool (Rele, Kennedy & Blas, 2017) was applied to GMJ on 5 May 2026. All 16 criteria were scored 1–3 using evidence from publicly visible pages on gmj.ge. Supplementary assessment was conducted against Think.Check.Submit., COPE–DOAJ–OASPA–WAME Principles of Transparency, DOAJ application criteria, ICMJE recommendations, and NLM/PubMed Central criteria.
Results GMJ achieved 46/48 (95.8%) on the LMU rubric — in the “Good” band (38–48). Fifteen of 16 criteria scored the maximum 3/3, including indexing in 11 confirmed international databases (Crossref, Google Scholar, Zenodo, OpenAIRE, BASE, OpenDOAR, OpenAlex, ERIH+, ASCI, ETH Library/swisscovery). One gap remains: DOAJ listing pending approval (1/3). Cross-framework assessment showed consistent performance of 92–96% across all tools.
Conclusion GMJ demonstrates strong foundational credibility for an inaugural-year OA journal, now indexed in 11 international databases. DOAJ approval and JATS XML implementation are the two highest-priority actions. Annual re-assessment using this multi-framework approach is recommended as standard editorial practice.
Keywords journal quality; open access; LMU rubric; journal evaluation; Georgian Medical Journal; DOAJ; Think.Check.Submit.; COPE; predatory publishing; editorial transparency
References
1. Beall J. Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. Nature. 2016;534(7607):326. doi:10.1038/534326a
2. Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576(7786):210–212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
3. Rele S, Kennedy M, Blas N. Journal Evaluation Tool. LMU Librarian Publications & Presentations. 2017;40. Available from: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/40
4. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine. 2017;15(1):28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
5. Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine. 2015;13(1):230. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
6. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
7. Think.Check.Submit. Checklist for researchers [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/
8. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing. Version 4. 2022. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing
9. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Application guide and criteria [Internet]. Copenhagen: DOAJ; 2024. Available from: https://doaj.org/apply/guide/
10. Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall's List: Better understanding predatory publishers. College & Research Libraries News. 2015;76(3):132–135. doi:10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
11. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27(2):285–291. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.031
12. Crawford W. Journals, 'Journals' and Wannabes: Investigating the List. Cites & Insights. 2014;14(7):1–45.
13. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core practices [Internet]. Eastleigh: COPE; 2022. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
14. Suber P. Open Access. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2012.
15. Budapest Open Access Initiative. Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative: setting the default to open [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations
16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
18. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806–808. doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD
19. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332
20. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2016;25(12):986–992. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
21. Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, Aronson JK, von Schoen-Angerer T, Tugwell P, et al. CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017;89:218–235. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.004
22. Nuredini G, Makoul G, Bales ME. Researcher perspectives on the use of journal quality indicators. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2020;108(2):183–192. doi:10.5195/jmla.2020.790
23. Macháček V, Srholec M. Predatory journals in Scopus. Scientometrics. 2022;127(9):5457–5479. doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04539-0
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Giorgi Pkhakadze
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
You are free to: share and adapt the work for any purpose, even commercially.
Conditions: provide appropriate credit to the authors and the Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ), link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. Do not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the licence permits.
Licence: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 · Legal code: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Third-party material. Images or other content credited to a third party are not covered by CC BY 4.0; permission must be obtained from the rights holder for reuse beyond statutory exceptions.
Authors' rights. Authors retain copyright. First publication rights are granted to GMJ.
Data and code. Where provided, datasets or code may carry their own licences; please follow the licence stated in the article or repository record.
Listen on Spotify
Apple Podcasts
YouTube
Amazon Music
Castbox
Pocket Casts
LinkedIn
Facebook
X
Instagram
Substack
Bluesky
ResearchGate
