Credibility Assessment of an Emerging Open-Access Medical Journal Using the LMU Journal Evaluation Tool: A Structured Self-Assessment of the Georgian Medical Journal with Comparison Across Five Evaluation Frameworks

Background The growth of open-access (OA) publishing has intensified the need for transparent, reproducible journal quality assessment. Self-assessment using standardised tools is an emerging practice in responsible editorial governance. Objective To conduct a structured, publicly documented self-assessment of the Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) in its inaugural year using the LMU Journal Evaluation Tool as the primary instrument, supplemented by parallel assessment against four additional international frameworks, and to establish an annual quality baseline. Methods The LMU Journal Evaluation Tool (Rele, Kennedy & Blas, 2017) was applied to GMJ on 5 May 2026. All 16 criteria were scored 1–3 using evidence from publicly visible pages on gmj.ge. Supplementary assessment was conducted against Think.Check.Submit., COPE–DOAJ–OASPA–WAME Principles of Transparency, DOAJ application criteria, ICMJE recommendations, and NLM/PubMed Central criteria. Results GMJ achieved 46/48 (95.8%) on the LMU rubric — in the “Good” band (38–48). Fifteen of 16 criteria scored the maximum 3/3, including indexing in 11 confirmed international databases (Crossref, Google Scholar, Zenodo, OpenAIRE, BASE, OpenDOAR, OpenAlex, ERIH+, ASCI, ETH Library/swisscovery). One gap remains: DOAJ listing pending approval (1/3). Cross-framework assessment showed consistent performance of 92–96% across all tools. Conclusion GMJ demonstrates strong foundational credibility for an inaugural-year OA journal, now indexed in 11 international databases. DOAJ approval and JATS XML implementation are the two highest-priority actions. Annual re-assessment using this multi-framework approach is recommended as standard editorial practice. Keywords journal quality; open access; LMU rubric; journal evaluation; Georgian Medical Journal; DOAJ; Think.Check.Submit.; COPE; predatory publishing; editorial transparency