Editorial Policies

The Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) is committed to upholding the highest standards of editorial integrity, publication ethics, and transparency. Our editorial policies align with internationally recognised frameworks developed by the leading authoritative bodies in scientific publishing, biomedical research ethics, and open scholarship — ensuring full compliance with global best practices for peer-reviewed biomedical journals indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE/PubMed, and DOAJ.

This page should be read in conjunction with GMJ's dedicated policy pages: Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent · Data Sharing and Reproducibility Policy · Peer Review Policy · Advertising Policy · Plagiarism Policy · Open Access Policy · Archiving Policy · Preprint Policy.

Standards Compliance at a Glance

Domain Standard / Body Status
Manuscript preparation ICMJE Recommendations ✓ Adopted
Publication ethics COPE Core Practices ✓ Adopted
Editorial standards CSE Recommendations, EASE Handbook, WAME Policies ✓ Adopted
Open access transparency DOAJ / COPE / OASPA / WAME Joint Principles ✓ Adopted
Reporting guidelines EQUATOR Network (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, CARE, ARRIVE, SPIRIT, TRIPOD) ✓ Required
Research ethics Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS, WHO ✓ Required
Persistent identifiers Crossref DOI (10.66636), ORCID ✓ Active
Plagiarism screening Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) ✓ All submissions
Long-term preservation PKP PN, LOCKSS, OAI-PMH ✓ Active
Open licensing Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 ✓ All articles
Preprint policy ICMJE / medRxiv / bioRxiv ✓ Published
Anti-predatory verification Think. Check. Submit. ✓ Endorsed
Citation & metadata standards NLM Citation Style, NISO JATS ✓ Adopted

Foundational Editorial Frameworks

GMJ's editorial policies are explicitly informed by the following internationally recognised organisations and standards:

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) — Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. The ICMJE Recommendations are the de facto standard for biomedical manuscript preparation. GMJ implements ICMJE authorship criteria, the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form, and clinical trial registration requirements.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — Core Practices and case-by-case guidance for editors. GMJ follows COPE's flowcharts for handling authorship disputes, data fabrication, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and misconduct allegations.
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) — GMJ aligns with WAME's policies on editorial independence, the WAME Recommendations on Predatory Journals, and WAME's position statements on AI-generated content and the integrity of the medical literature.
  • European Association of Science Editors (EASE) — The EASE Handbook provides practical guidance on language, structure, and editorial conventions, with particular attention to non-native English authors — a population GMJ actively supports.
  • Council of Science Editors (CSE) — Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (formerly the CSE White Paper on Publication Ethics). GMJ adopts CSE's recommendations on the roles and responsibilities of editors, authors, reviewers, sponsors, and publishers, including its 2023–2024 updates on AI use and supplements/special series.
  • Think. Check. Submit. — Cross-industry checklist (jointly endorsed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME, STM, ALPSP, ISSN, UKSG and others) helping authors verify trusted journals. GMJ encourages authors to use this checklist before submitting anywhere.
  • WHO Manual for Editors of Health Science Journals — World Health Organization (Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean) guidance for editors of health science journals (2009, ISBN 978-92-9021-688-9).

Reporting Standards and Methodological Frameworks

GMJ requires authors to follow internationally accepted reporting guidelines hosted by the EQUATOR Network. These are explicitly recommended by Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE as quality indicators:

  • EQUATOR Network — Comprehensive resource for reporting guidelines across study types.
  • CONSORT — for randomised controlled trials.
  • PRISMA — for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • STROBE — for observational studies in epidemiology.
  • CARE — for case reports.
  • ARRIVE — for animal research.
  • SPIRIT — for clinical trial protocols.
  • TRIPOD — for prediction model studies.
  • STARD — for diagnostic accuracy studies.
  • SQUIRE — for quality improvement studies.
  • COREQ — for qualitative research.

Research Ethics

GMJ enforces the strictest international standards on human and animal research ethics:

For full details, see Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent.

Open Access and Open Scholarship

GMJ is a fully open-access journal published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Authors retain full copyright. Our open-access practices align with:

Citation, Metadata, and Technical Standards

  • NLM Citation Style — National Library of Medicine reference style (Vancouver/ICMJE) used throughout GMJ for biomedical citations.
  • NISO JATS (Journal Article Tag Suite) — ANSI/NISO Z39.96 standard for XML article markup, enabling interoperability with PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science indexing pipelines.
  • NISO Standards — National Information Standards Organization, including KBART for knowledge bases and STS for standards documents.

Preservation and Long-term Access

  • PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) — Distributed digital archiving for long-term preservation of all GMJ content.
  • OAI-PMH — Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, enabling indexing services to access GMJ metadata.
  • LOCKSS — Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe distributed preservation framework.

Indexing and Discoverability

GMJ content is currently discoverable through Crossref, OpenAlex, BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine), Google Scholar, ROAD (Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources, ISSN International Centre), and the PKP Index. The journal is actively pursuing inclusion in DOAJ, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE.

 

 

Core Editorial Principles

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made on the basis of scientific merit and ethical standards alone, free from commercial, political, or institutional pressure. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board operate independently of the publisher, the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG).

Peer Review Integrity

All research articles undergo rigorous double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent experts. Reviewers are screened for conflicts of interest and bound by confidentiality. The peer review process follows ICMJE and COPE guidelines. Decision criteria, the appeal process, and average turnaround times are transparently disclosed. For full details, see Peer Review Policy.

Authorship and Contributorship

GMJ applies the ICMJE four-criterion definition of authorship. All authors must (1) make substantial contributions to the conception, design, data acquisition, or analysis; (2) draft or critically revise the manuscript; (3) approve the final version; and (4) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Contributorship statements using the CRediT taxonomy (NISO Z39.104-2022) are required for all original research.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the work. Disclosures are submitted using the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form and published with each article. For full details, see Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent.

 

 

Research Integrity and Misconduct

Definitions of Research Misconduct

GMJ defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

  • Fabrication: Making up data, results, or other research records and reporting them as genuine.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or data, or changing or omitting data or results, such that the research is not accurately represented.
  • Plagiarism: Appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results, text, images, or other creative work without giving appropriate credit, including self-plagiarism (undisclosed text recycling).

Additional prohibited practices include:

  • Image manipulation: Altering images in ways that misrepresent the data (e.g., selective cropping, contrast adjustment, splicing, or duplication of bands, cells, or fields) without disclosure and justification.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication: Submitting or publishing substantially the same work in more than one journal without disclosure, cross-referencing, and justification.
  • Citation manipulation: Artificially inflating citations to a particular journal, author, or article.
  • Peer-review manipulation: Suggesting fabricated reviewers, interfering with the peer-review process, or impersonating reviewers.
  • Authorship misconduct: Gift, guest, or ghost authorship; failure to meet ICMJE authorship criteria; or exclusion of individuals who meet authorship criteria.
  • Failure to disclose: Concealment of competing interests, ethics committee decisions, or data that contradict the manuscript's conclusions.

Plagiarism Detection and Prevention

All manuscripts are screened for textual similarity using Crossref Similarity Check / iThenticate or Turnitin at the time of initial submission. Screening may be repeated after major revision if warranted. There is no single fixed percentage threshold that automatically defines plagiarism; the editorial team evaluates similarity reports in context, considering the nature, extent, and location of overlapping text. Matching text in the Methods section that describes standard procedures may be acceptable when properly attributed. Unattributed copying of results, discussion, or conclusions from another work is considered plagiarism regardless of the overlap percentage. Self-plagiarism (text recycling) must be disclosed by authors at submission; undisclosed text recycling is treated as misconduct.

Image and Data Integrity

Images submitted with manuscripts must not be manipulated in ways that could mislead:

  • Any adjustments to brightness, contrast, or colour balance must be applied uniformly to the entire image, not selectively to specific regions.
  • Grouping of images from different experiments or time points must be clearly indicated with borders or labels.
  • No features may be added to, rearranged, moved, removed, or obscured within an image.
  • High-resolution original, unprocessed image files must be provided to editors on request.
  • Any processing applied to images must be described in the Methods section or figure legends.

GMJ editors may use forensic image analysis tools to detect manipulation. Manuscripts found to contain manipulated images will be handled according to COPE flowcharts.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct

GMJ takes all allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously and investigates them following COPE flowcharts. The process applies regardless of whether the allegation arises before, during, or after publication.

Sources of allegations. Allegations may originate from editors, reviewers, readers, authors, institutions, whistleblowers, or through editorial screening (e.g., similarity checks, image analysis). Anonymous allegations are accepted and investigated if they contain sufficient detail.

Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated deputy) conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation has substance and warrants formal investigation. Minor issues (e.g., inadvertent errors, minor overlapping text with proper attribution) may be resolved through correspondence with the authors.

Formal investigation. If the initial assessment suggests that misconduct may have occurred:

  • The corresponding author is contacted in writing and given an opportunity to respond within a reasonable timeframe (typically 14–30 days).
  • The response is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with other editors or external advisors as needed.
  • If the manuscript is still under review, the review process may be paused pending resolution.
  • All communications and evidence are documented and retained confidentially.

Outcomes. Depending on the severity and nature of the misconduct, actions may include one or more of the following, in escalating order:

  • A letter of explanation and education to the author(s).
  • A request to correct or amend the manuscript.
  • Rejection of the manuscript.
  • Publication of a correction (erratum or corrigendum) for published articles with errors that do not invalidate the findings.
  • Publication of an expression of concern while an investigation is ongoing or when evidence is inconclusive.
  • Retraction of the article if the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or serious error.
  • Notification to the author's institution, employer, ethics committee, or funding body.
  • A ban on future submissions to GMJ for a defined period.
  • Reporting to relevant professional or regulatory bodies.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

GMJ follows COPE Retraction Guidelines for handling errors and misconduct discovered post-publication.

  • Corrections (Errata / Corrigenda): Address errors — whether by the authors or the journal — that do not affect the validity of the findings, conclusions, or overall integrity of the article.
  • Retractions: Issued when the findings are unreliable (due to misconduct or serious error), when the article constitutes plagiarism, when it reports unethical research, or when the peer-review process was compromised. Retracted articles are not removed from the archive but are clearly watermarked as "RETRACTED."
  • Expressions of Concern: Published when there is inconclusive evidence of misconduct or unreliability, when an investigation is ongoing and unlikely to be resolved promptly, or when the institution responsible has not conducted an adequate inquiry.

All correction notices, expressions of concern, and retraction notices are permanently linked to the original article, assigned a DOI, clearly labelled in the table of contents and article metadata, and tracked through Crossmark notifications.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

GMJ's AI policy aligns with the joint position statements of ICMJE, COPE, and WAME:

  • Authors must transparently disclose any use of AI tools (including large language models) in manuscript preparation, specifying the tool name, version, developer, and which sections were affected. The disclosure must appear in the Methods section and/or a dedicated AI Use Disclosure statement in the Declarations section.
  • AI tools cannot be listed as authors and cannot bear accountability for the work.
  • Editors and reviewers may not upload manuscript content into public AI tools that retain submitted text for training, as this would breach confidentiality.
  • AI-generated images, figures, or data are prohibited unless explicitly disclosed and approved by the editor.
  • Authors must not upload confidential patient data, unpublished research data, or identifiable personal information into AI tools without appropriate ethical approval and data-protection safeguards.
  • Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, ethical compliance, and integrity of all content in the manuscript, including any AI-assisted output.

Data Availability and Reproducibility

Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement with each manuscript and are encouraged to share underlying data through trusted FAIR-principle repositories (Zenodo, Dryad, Figshare, OSF). Code, protocols, and analytic plans are welcomed as supplementary materials. For full details, see Data Sharing and Reproducibility Policy.

 

 

Whistleblower Protection

GMJ encourages any individual who suspects research or publication misconduct to report their concerns to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@gmj.ge. The identity of the person raising the concern will be kept confidential to the fullest extent possible. GMJ will not retaliate against, or tolerate retaliation against, any individual who makes a good-faith report of suspected misconduct. Anonymous reports are accepted and investigated when they contain sufficient detail to enable assessment.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by writing to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@gmj.ge with a detailed, point-by-point response addressing the concerns raised. Appeals are handled, where possible, by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. The decision on the appeal is final. Ethical or procedural complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidance on appeals. Unresolved cases may be escalated following COPE guidance.

 

 

Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Responsibilities of Authors

  • Ensure that all research has been conducted ethically and in compliance with applicable regulations.
  • Report findings accurately, completely, and without fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting.
  • Disclose all competing interests, funding sources, and the role of funders.
  • Comply with ICMJE authorship criteria and the CRediT contributor taxonomy.
  • Provide ethics committee approval details, informed consent statements, and data availability statements.
  • Submit only original work that has not been published or is not under consideration elsewhere, unless fully disclosed.
  • Cooperate with editorial investigations and respond promptly to queries regarding their manuscript.
  • Correct errors promptly when they are identified.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Conduct reviews objectively, constructively, and in a timely manner.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content and not share or discuss it with others.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when appropriate.
  • Not use information obtained during peer review for personal or third-party advantage.
  • Report any suspected misconduct to the handling editor.
  • Not upload manuscript content into AI tools or other third-party platforms.

Responsibilities of Editors

  • Make editorial decisions based solely on scientific merit, relevance, and ethical compliance.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the editorial process.
  • Manage conflicts of interest transparently and recuse themselves when necessary.
  • Investigate allegations of misconduct fairly and in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
  • Issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions promptly when warranted.
  • Ensure the integrity of the published record.

 

 

Editorial Independence and Publisher Relationship

GMJ is published by the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG). Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board. PHIG provides infrastructure and financial support but exercises no influence over editorial content, peer review outcomes, or article acceptance decisions.

Updates to This Policy

These editorial policies are reviewed annually by the GMJ editorial board and updated to reflect evolving international standards. Substantive changes are communicated to authors and readers through journal announcements.

New COPE membership applications are temporarily paused. GMJ intends to apply at the earliest opportunity once applications reopen and eligibility criteria are met.

Last reviewed: May 2026 · Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze, MD, MPH, PhD · Contact: editor@gmj.ge · Publisher: Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) · ISSN: 3088-4322 (Online) · DOI prefix: 10.66636 (Crossref)