Reviews for "BMC Public Health"

Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
BMC Public Health 21.7
weeks
27.7
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2021
Motivation: My experience is in accordance with other reviews here. The review process is very slow and the communication with the journal is not good. Our submitted manuscript was sent for peer review and we received reports after 5 months. We resubmitted the revised manuscript within 2.5 weeks addressing all the comments. We felt that one reviewer report was very professional, the other reviewer was not experienced in the field. Afterwards, something surprising happened. We received comments from two _new_ reviewers. Their comments requested the exact opposite as the first two reviewers. Our manuscript was rejected. I would not submit here again. It is a waste of time with poor communication. I may add that our manuscript was sent back once randomly: a person in the editorial office hit the wrong button (and apologized for it). I would not recommend BMC Public Health.
BMC Public Health 38.0
weeks
38.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Rejected 2021
BMC Public Health 32.6
weeks
42.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2019
BMC Public Health 15.4
weeks
15.4
weeks
n/a 2 0
(very bad)
0
(very bad)
Drawn back 2018
Motivation: The quality of the review process was very, very low. Our manuscript was a follow-up of a study already published 3 times in high-level journals, and used the same exact methodology.
The Editor and a reviewer asked us to entirely change the methodology, suggesting revisions that were clearly, plain wrong.
On some points, the review was hironic, as they told us to change parts of the methods, when such methods were published 3 years before in the same journal.
One of the worst revisions I have ever had (among more than 200): we had to withdraw the manuscript, which has been accepted - after few, minor revisions - on a higher I.F. journal.
BMC Public Health 9.0
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
3
(good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Relatively fast, but relatively bad reviews.
BMC Public Health 12.3
weeks
34.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Rejected 2017
Motivation: Nothing positive.
1. Long process (8 months in total).
2. Limited communication from journal about status or any issues connected with submission.
3. Resubmission was with BMC for 5 months before final decision, and this appears only to have happened because I had to send 3 e-mails to find out what was happening.
4. The reason for final rejection was debatable (paper did not conform to requirements) and in stark contradiction to the editorial office's previous actions (sent out twice for peer review; resubmission requested). If the paper did not conform, why was this not made clear at the start?
5. The apology for this whole process taking 8 months was scant and formulaic.
BMC Public Health 9.6
weeks
36.1
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The review process was excellent as were the comments provided by the reviewers. However, the length of the final editorial decision on the manuscript was too long.
BMC Public Health 0.7
weeks
1.0
weeks
n/a 1 5
(excellent)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: The manuscript in hand was a study protocol already approved by external reviewers during the funding stage. In this way, the review process by BMC Public Health was very quick and strait to the point, but the time between acceptance and publication was relatively long (6 weeks) when compare with the review process.
BMC Public Health 30.4
weeks
31.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2011
BMC Public Health 6.0
weeks
6.0
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Drawn back 2014
BMC Public Health n/a n/a 5.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2014