Reviewer Guideline

Georgian Medical Journal · Peer Review

Reviewer Guideline

Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) · Double-anonymised review · COPE · ICMJE · editor@gmj.ge

1) Before You Accept the Assignment

— File access & integrity. Confirm that the manuscript and supplementary files open correctly.
— Scope & expertise fit. Ensure the topic matches your expertise and GMJ's scope.
— Availability. Standard review window: 14 days (extensions on request). If you cannot meet the deadline, decline promptly.
— Conflicts of interest. Disclose any financial, academic, collaborative, or personal ties. If a conflict exists or you cannot be objective, decline.
— Confidentiality. The manuscript is strictly confidential. Do not share it or use its ideas/data prior to publication.
— Reviewer recognition. Timely, high-quality reviews are eligible for a 20% APC discount voucher for a future GMJ submission, transferable to a co-author. This does not influence editorial decisions.

GMJ uses double-anonymised (double-blind) review: do not attempt to identify the authors, and remove any metadata or comments that could reveal your identity in uploaded files.

Reviewers are selected from GMJ's external reviewer database based on subject expertise, methodological competence, and geographic relevance. The Editor-in-Chief does not serve as sole reviewer for any submission.

2) What to Evaluate — Core Criteria

1. Originality & Relevance

Novel question or new insight for Georgia/region or general medicine. Adds value beyond existing literature.

2. Scientific and Methodological Rigour

Appropriate design; transparent methods; bias minimised. Statistics reported with effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (avoid p-values alone). Sample size/power justification; clear inclusion/exclusion criteria.

3. Ethical Compliance

Human research: ethics committee/IRB approval and informed consent. Animal research: institutional approval and welfare statements. Data privacy and de-identification for images/records.

4. Reporting Quality

Relevant checklist attached (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, SQUIRE, ARRIVE, CHEERS). Clear structure; logical flow; appropriate tables/figures; abbreviations expanded at first use.

5. Data, Code & Materials

Data Availability Statement present; repositories/DOIs where feasible. Code/software versions stated; analyses reproducible in principle.

6. References & Context

Up-to-date, relevant citations; balanced discussion; correct Vancouver style.

7. Impact & Applicability

Clinical/public health significance; implications for practice, policy, or future research.

3) How to Structure Your Review Report

A) Brief summary (2–5 sentences) — State the study question, methods, and main findings in your own words.
B) Major strengths (bulleted) — e.g., "Strong prospective design with pre-registered protocol."
C) Major issues (numbered) — Issues that must be addressed before acceptance: design limitations, missing ethics approval number, inadequate statistical analysis, unclear primary endpoint.
D) Minor issues (numbered) — Editorial/clarity items: terminology, figure readability, small inconsistencies, typographical errors.
E) Required reporting/compliance checks — Indicate applicable guidelines (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/CARE/SQUIRE/ARRIVE/CHEERS) and confirm: Ethics, Funding, Competing Interests, Data Availability, AI Use Disclosure.
F) Confidential comments to editor (optional) — Ethical concerns, suspected duplicate submission, feasibility of revisions, or recommendation sensitivity.
G) Recommendation (choose one) — Accept · Minor revision · Major revision · Reject

Important: Your recommendation guides the editors but the final decision is editorial. When reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may invite a third independent reviewer or reach a final decision based on the detailed content of both reviews.

4) Ethical Flags & Misconduct — What to Watch For

— Plagiarism or text recycling — high similarity not explained by methods/references
— Data fabrication/falsification — improbable distributions, duplicated images/bands, inconsistent numbers
— Image manipulation — non-uniform adjustments; duplicated panels
— Duplicate/overlapping publication — substantial overlap with prior work
— Undeclared conflicts of interest
— Trial registration issues — post-hoc registration or missing ID for interventional studies

If you suspect a serious issue, do not contact the authors — use Confidential comments to editor.

5) Statistics & Reporting Quick-Checks

— Primary outcome stated a priori; sample size/power justified
— Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals; model assumptions addressed
— Multiplicity and subgroup analyses pre-specified or clearly labelled as exploratory
— Missing data handled transparently (e.g., multiple imputation)
— Raw numbers presented alongside percentages; denominator always clear

6) Figures, Tables & Data Presentation

— Figures at adequate resolution; axes labelled; units SI
— Table/figure titles and legends self-contained; avoid text smaller than 8 pt in images
— Patient images anonymised; written consent for recognisable individuals

7) Tone and Professionalism

— Be courteous, specific, and constructive.
— Focus on how to improve the manuscript.
— Avoid personal remarks and speculative accusations in author-visible comments.

8) Timelines and Extensions

— Default review period: 14 days.
— If you need more time or must decline, inform the editor within 3 days of invitation.

9) Confidentiality and Data Use

— Treat all materials as confidential.
— Do not store manuscripts on shared devices; delete local copies after the process.
— Do not use unpublished ideas, data, or methods for personal advantage.

10) Blinding and Anonymity

— Keep your identity confidential.
— In any uploaded annotated files, remove your name/initials and author-identifying metadata.

11) Optional Scoring Rubric (0–4 each)

Originality/Relevance    0 — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4
Methods/Statistics    0 — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4
Ethics/Compliance    0 — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4
Clarity/Structure    0 — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4
Impact/Applicability    0 — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4

12) Sample Review Form (copy/paste)

Manuscript ID/Title:
Summary (2–5 sentences):
Major strengths: 1)    2)
Major issues: 1)    2)
Minor issues: 1)    2)
Compliance checks: CONSORT ☐ STROBE ☐ PRISMA ☐ CARE ☐ SQUIRE ☐ ARRIVE ☐ CHEERS ☐
Ethics approval/consent ☐ Funding ☐ Competing interests ☐ Data availability ☐ AI use disclosure ☐
Confidential comments to editor:
Recommendation: Accept ☐ / Minor revision ☐ / Major revision ☐ / Reject ☐

13) Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgement

GMJ acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers to the integrity of scientific publishing. Reviewers who complete at least one review during a calendar year are listed in an annual acknowledgement published on the GMJ website, with their permission. Individual review content and recommendations remain strictly confidential at all times.

To be included in the annual acknowledgement list, reviewers may confirm their consent by email to editor@gmj.ge.

Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) · Published by the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) · Double-anonymised review · COPE · CC BY 4.0 · editor@gmj.ge · gmj.ge