Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
21.7 weeks
27.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
38.0 weeks
38.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2021
32.6 weeks
42.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
15.4 weeks
15.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
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.
9.0 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Relatively fast, but relatively bad reviews.
12.3 weeks
34.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
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.
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.
9.6 weeks
36.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
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.
0.7 weeks
1.0 weeks
n/a
1 reports
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.
30.4 weeks
31.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2011
6.0 weeks
6.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Drawn back
2014
n/a
n/a
5 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2014