Journal of Medical Internet Research

Journal info (provided by editor)

Issues per year
12
Articles published last year
500
Manuscripts received last year
850
% accepted last year
50
% immediately rejected last year
2
Open access status
open access
Manuscript handling fee?
yes
Fee per manuscript
$90
Kind of complaint procedure
Editor
Two-year impact factor
4.70
Five-year impact factor
5.70

About

The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR, www.jmir.org) is the flagship journal of JMIR Publications and consistently ranked as the leading (#1) journal in its discipline, with a 2013 impact factor of 4.7, out of 25 leading medical informatics journals.
JMIR Publications, the leading publisher for digital health, continues to grow, now has offices in Toronto and Hongkong, and publishes a dozen journals at the intersection between health and technology/innovation, including JMIR Research Protocols, JMIR Serious Games, JMIR Medical Informatics, interactive Journal of Medical Research, JMIR mHealth and uHealth, JMIR Mental Health, JMIR Human Factors, JMIR Rehabilitation and Cyborg Technologies, Medicine 2.0, and others. JMIR Publications also produces the leading academic conference s

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 64 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 1.5 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 2.2 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection 1 days compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.5 compare →
Average number of review rounds 2.1 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.2 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.6 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 8.4 weeks. Overall rating: 3 (good). Outcome: Rejected.

Motivation:
The review process took a very long time (especially after the revision). We received two reviews. One of the reviewers didn't like our paper (possibly because we didn't cite her\him) and was abusive in their language. In the second round the comments both reviewers raised new issues which are provably wrong.