Peer Review Policy

Georgian Medical Journal · Editorial Policy

Peer Review Policy

Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) · Double-anonymised · Independent external review · COPE · ICMJE

The Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) is committed to rigorous, independent, fair, confidential, and transparent peer review. Scholarly research articles, reviews, case reports, and comparable scientific submissions designated as peer reviewed are normally evaluated through a double-anonymised (double-blind) process by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.

Peer review is advisory to the editors. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised handling editor. GMJ's procedures are informed by relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submission is initially assessed by the editorial team before external review. Screening considers the journal's aims and scope, article type, originality, completeness, methodological suitability, ethical compliance, reporting standards, authorship and disclosure requirements, plagiarism or textual-similarity concerns, data-integrity issues, and overall suitability for further evaluation.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it is clearly outside GMJ's scope, does not meet minimum scientific, methodological, reporting, or ethical standards, is insufficiently complete for meaningful review, or otherwise does not meet the journal's editorial requirements. Such decisions are communicated to the corresponding author.

2. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant scientific, clinical, methodological, or professional expertise; independence from the authors and the work under review; ability to provide a timely and evidence-based assessment; and absence of conflicts that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, impartiality.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest before accepting an invitation. Editors may decline or replace a reviewer whenever independence is uncertain. Reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

Authors may suggest suitably qualified reviewers and may request exclusion of particular reviewers with a brief justification. GMJ is under no obligation to use suggested reviewers or to honour exclusion requests when editorially inappropriate. The journal may independently verify reviewer identity, institutional affiliation, expertise, contact information, and potential conflicts.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers consider scientific quality, originality and contribution to the field; relevance to GMJ's aims and scope; study design and methodological rigour; statistical analysis where applicable; completeness and transparency of reporting; ethical standards, consent and trial registration; data integrity, reproducibility and availability; interpretation of results and limitations; appropriateness of references; and clarity and scholarly readability.

4. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, author responses, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss confidential submission materials outside the authorised review process; use unpublished information for personal, professional, competitive, or commercial advantage; contact authors directly regarding the submission; or delegate the review to another person without prior editorial permission.

Reviews must be objective, constructive, evidence based, and respectful. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, coercive citation requests, irrelevant self-citation requests, or recommendations intended primarily to increase citations to the reviewer, the journal, or associated publications are unacceptable.

5. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and related editorial material. They must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, author responses, or confidential editorial correspondence into public or third-party generative AI systems where confidentiality, data protection, retention, or reuse cannot be assured.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's or editor's independent scholarly judgement or be used to generate a peer-review report on the reviewer's behalf. Any permitted AI-assisted language or administrative support must not compromise confidentiality or research integrity. Reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for their assessments and decisions.

6. Supplementary Material and Research Data

Supplementary material that forms part of the scientific evidence supporting a manuscript—including reporting checklists, protocols, additional tables or figures, datasets, statistical material, and analysis code where supplied—may be made available to reviewers and considered as part of peer review. Reviewers should assess such material where necessary to evaluate validity, transparency, or reproducibility.

7. Reviewer Reports and Anonymity

Under GMJ's standard double-anonymised model, reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors and authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers. Reviewers should avoid including information in their reports that unnecessarily reveals their identity.

GMJ may offer an optional transparent peer-review pathway. Where used, reviewer reports and author responses may be published alongside the final article. A reviewer's identity is disclosed publicly only with that reviewer's explicit consent. Transparent peer review does not alter standards for reviewer independence, confidentiality during evaluation, or editorial decision-making.

8. Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or authorised handling editor makes the final decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, methodological and ethical issues, and GMJ editorial standards. Standard decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Where recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor may seek clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer, consult a methodological or statistical expert, or make an editorial decision based on the available evidence.

Authors invited to revise should provide a point-by-point response and clearly identify substantive changes. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to additional reviewers, or assessed editorially depending on the nature and extent of revisions.

9. Editorial Conflicts, Recusal, and Journal-Related Authors

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, advisors, reviewers, journal staff, or individuals with a close personal, professional, or institutional relationship to a decision-making editor receive no preferential treatment.

Any editor with an actual, potential, or perceived conflict must recuse themselves. The submission is assigned to an independent editor who controls reviewer selection, correspondence, evaluation, and the final decision. The conflicted individual must not influence the process or access confidential deliberations beyond what is necessary in their role as an author, if applicable.

10. Special Issues, Supplements, and Conference Proceedings

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for all content published by GMJ, including special issues, supplements, conference proceedings, and guest-edited or thematic collections. Peer-reviewed scholarly articles in these publications are subject to the same standards of independent external peer review as comparable content in regular issues.

Guest editors are selected on the basis of relevant expertise. Their credentials and competing interests are reviewed before appointment, and each guest-edited collection is overseen by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Board member. GMJ retains control over editorial policies, reviewer independence, ethical standards, and final publication decisions.

Manuscripts authored by guest editors are handled independently by an uninvolved editor and independent reviewers. Papers authored by guest editor(s) may constitute no more than 25% of a special issue. Special-issue articles and collection content are clearly identified.

11. Content Not Subject to Standard External Peer Review

Not every item published by GMJ is treated as externally peer-reviewed research. Certain content types—including editorials, selected letters or replies, Reference Summaries, GMJ Academy educational material, corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, obituaries, and other clearly identified non-research or editorial content—may undergo structured editorial review rather than standard external double-anonymised peer review.

The review route for such content is described in the Author Guidelines and, where appropriate, identified in the published item. Any material exception to GMJ's standard external peer-review process is disclosed transparently. Editorially reviewed content must still meet applicable standards of accuracy, integrity, ethics, attribution, and editorial independence.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe a substantive scientific, procedural, or ethical error occurred. Appeals must identify the specific grounds and provide relevant supporting information; disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient.

Whenever practicable, an appeal is considered by an editor who was not materially involved in the original decision. GMJ may seek additional independent expert advice where necessary. Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics are handled under the journal's Editorial Policies and relevant COPE guidance.

13. Peer-Review Integrity and Misconduct

GMJ does not tolerate fabricated reviewer identities, false contact details, undisclosed conflicts of interest, review rings, manipulation of reviewer selection, unauthorised sharing of manuscripts, coercive citation practices, impersonation, or other attempts to compromise peer review.

Suspected manipulation or misconduct may result in suspension of review, rejection, withdrawal of a decision, correction or retraction after publication where appropriate, notification of relevant institutions or other parties when justified, and other actions consistent with GMJ policy and relevant COPE guidance.

14. Reviewer Recognition

GMJ may recognise reviewers who provide timely, high-quality reviews. Reviewers who complete at least one review during a calendar year may be acknowledged in an annual listing on the GMJ website, with their permission. Recognition does not disclose which manuscripts an individual reviewed and does not compromise the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

Reviewer Guidelines

For detailed reviewer instructions, criteria, report structure, ethical flags, confidentiality requirements, and the sample review form.

Open Guidelines →

Peer Review Policy last reviewed and updated: September 2026.

Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ)
Published by the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG)
3 Betlemi Rise, 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia
Email: editor@gmj.ge · Website: gmj.ge
ISSN 3088-4322 (Online) · DOI prefix: 10.66636 · Open Access · CC BY 4.0