Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

TRANSLATIONAL AND CLINICAL MEDICINE – Georgian Medical Journal is an multidisciplinary, open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that publishes papers from all medical and biological (related to the medicine) fields. Journal publishes the following article types: 

  • Research Articles
  • Book reviews
  • Case Reports
  • Commentaries
  • Databases
  • Debates
  • Hypotheses
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Methodologies
  • Reviews
  • Short reports
  • Software
  • Study protocols

 

Section Policies

Literature Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Event

Editors
  • Gia Lobzhanidze
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

2nd International Symposium on Palliative care

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Abstracts of the Presentations

Editors
  • Gia Lobzhanidze
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Abstract of the Symposium

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Event - Symposium

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Hypothesis/Mini Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts are initially reviewed by the editorial staff, and if appropriate, will be assigned to a section editor. If the paper is judged to be suitable for possible publication, it will be sent to two or more external reviewers using our database of experts. All articles undergo this process with the following exceptions, which do not undergo our standard review process:

  • Letters to the EditorCommentaries and Editorials are based on the decision of the Editor, who may ask experts on the merit of their contents.
  • Practices Guidelines/Consensus Statements - Special considerations may be made in this case as they are typically authored by experts in the field. 
  • Meeting Reports – based on the decision of the Editor.
  • Special Articles – depending on the format and content, special articles may be solely based on the decision of the Editor, or undergo our standard review process.

Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. 

Translational and Clinical Medicine - Georgian Medical Journal adheres to a 'double blind' review process: Authors are not told who reviewed their paper, and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper. Peer reviewers are informed of the identity of the authors immediately after the manuscript is either accepted or rejected. The referees’ identity remains unknown to the authors although it is up to the referee if he/she wants to contact the author at a later stage and reveal his/her identity.

A typical peer review 'cycle' can look as the following:

  1. Authors submits paper
  2. Co-chairmen do the first review and assign paper to the section editor within 1-2 days, or rejects paper.
  3. The section editor assigns at least 2 reviewers as soon as possible, but within one week.
  4. Reviewers have 4 weeks to review the paper.
  5. Editor informs author about the editorial decision as soon as reviews are complete (aim within a month after submission).
  6. Author resubmits within 4 weeks.
  7. Second round review if necessary.

Revision of a manuscript does not guarantee publication.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is Opean Access?

 Open access (OA) is the practice of providing unrestricted access via the Internet to peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. OA is also increasingly being provided to theses, scholarly monographs and book chapters. By making information freely available in this way, Open Access accelerates research and learning. By reducing the barriers that restrict access to knowledge, Open Access maximizes the opportunity for publications to be read and for authors to be recognized for their contribution in their chosen field and beyond.

2. How long does it take for an article from submission to publication?

 From submission to publication, it takes nearly XXXXX month: two weeks for article reviewing and acceptance, and another one or two weeks for article publication once the fee is paid.

3. How much does Translational and Clinical Medicin-Georgian Medical Journal charge for an article?

  Article processing is free.

 

Publication Frequency

Translational and Clinical Medicine- Georgian Medical Journal  is published twice in a year.

 

Duties of Reviewers

  • Importance of Peer Reviewing

Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.
  • Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. If a selected referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.
  • Confidentiality

Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Study Ethics

Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).
  • Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Questions to guide the reviewer in assessment of the paper:

Please provide examples and evidence for responses, do not simply answer yes or no.

  1. Topic and content:

    1. Is the topic relevant for the journal?
    2. Is the content important to the field?
    3. Is the work original? (If not, please give references)
  2. Title:

    Does the title reflect the contents of the article?
  3. Abstract:

    To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions?
  4. Introduction / Background:

    Is the study rationale adequately described?
  5. Objectives:

    Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?
  6. Methodology:

    1. To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
    2. Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
    3. Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
    4. How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
    5. How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
  7. Ethical Consideration:

    If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?)
  8. Analysis and results:

    1. Are the methods adequately described?
    2. Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
    3. Do the results answer the research question?
    4. Are the results credible?
    5. Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
    6. Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
  9. Discussion:

    1. How well are the key findings stated?
    2. To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
    3. Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
    4. Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
    5. Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?
  10. Conclusion(s):

    Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?
  11. References:

    1. Are the references appropriate and relevant?
    2. Are they up to date?
    3. Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
    4. Do the references follow the recommended style?
    5. Are there any errors?
  12. Writing:

    1. Is the paper clearly written?
    2. Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
    3. Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?

 

PEER Review Steps

 

Our online peer review is a six step process:

  • Step 1 - Notify the submission's editor as to whether you will undertake the review (link provided in review request email).
  • Step 2 - If you accept to do the review, consult the Reviewer Guidelines.
  • Step 3 - Download the files associated with the submission.
  • Step 4 - Review the article; you will be asked to complete a Review Form or Open Text Form, depending on the submission type.
  • Step 5 (Optional) – uploading additional files for the editor and/or author to consult. To keep the integrity of a blind review, ensure your name is not present within the file.
  • Step 6 - Select a recommendation and submit the review to complete the process. You must enter a review or upload a file before selecting a recommendation. This step must be done for your review to show as complete within the system.