File access & integrity. Confirm that the manuscript and any 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 confidential. Do not share it or use its ideas/data prior to publication (see §10).
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.
Originality & relevance
Novel question or new insight for Georgia/region or general medicine
Adds value beyond existing literature
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
Ethical compliance
Human research: ethics committee/institutional review board approval and informed consent
Animal research: institutional approval and welfare statements
Data privacy and de-identification for images/records
Reporting quality
Relevant checklist attached (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, SQUIRE, ARRIVE, CHEERS)
Clear structure; logical flow; appropriate tables/figures; abbreviations expanded at first use
Data, code, and materials
Data Availability Statement present; repositories/DOIs when feasible
Code/software versions stated; analyses reproducible in principle
References & context
Up-to-date, relevant citations; balanced discussion; correct Vancouver style
Impact & applicability
Clinical/public health significance; implications for practice, policy, or future research
Provide your review in the journal system using the following headings:
State the study question, methods, and main findings in your own words.
e.g., “Strong prospective design with pre-registered protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov: N…).”
Issues that must be addressed before acceptance (e.g., design limitations, missing ethics approval number, inadequate statistical analysis, mismatched outcomes, unclear primary endpoint).
Editorial/clarity items (terminology, figure readability, small inconsistencies, typographical errors).
Indicate which guideline(s) apply (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/CARE/SQUIRE/ARRIVE/CHEERS) and whether the checklist is included and followed.
Confirm presence/adequacy of: Ethics, Funding, Competing Interests, Data Availability, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Disclosure.
Ethical concerns, suspected duplicate submission, prior knowledge of the work, feasibility of revisions, or recommendation sensitivity.
Accept (exceptional; rarely used without revisions)
Minor revision (straightforward changes)
Major revision (substantive methodological/analytical changes)
Reject (not suitable or fatally flawed)
Important: Your recommendation guides the editors but the final decision is editorial.
Plagiarism or text recycling (use quotations/citations; note high similarity not explained by methods/refs)
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.
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
Figures at adequate resolution; axes labelled; units International System of 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
Be courteous, specific, and constructive.
Focus on how to improve the manuscript.
Avoid personal remarks and speculative accusations in author-visible comments.
Default review period: 14 days.
If you need more time or must decline, inform the editor within 3 days of invitation.
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.
Keep your identity confidential.
In any uploaded annotated files, remove your name/initials and author-identifying metadata.
Originality/Relevance (0–4)
Methods/Statistics (0–4)
Ethics/Compliance (0–4)
Clarity/Structure (0–4)
Impact/Applicability (0–4)
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 ☐
A new scientific commentary published in the Georgian Medical Journal examines the ethical and legal foundations for including critically ill patients in clinical research. The article is based on international standards and the Georgian regulatory context and is available in English with a DOI.
An overview of the evolution of ISO 15189—from a technical laboratory standard to a foundation of patient safety and health system trust—highlighting the roles of international organisations, WHO, and modern accreditation frameworks.
