Reviews for "BMJ Open"

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
BMJ Open 4.1
weeks
14.3
weeks
n/a 2 2
(moderate)
0
(very bad)
Accepted 2020
Motivation: Responses from the editorial office were slow and unhelpful. Managing editor provided limited input during the revision process (form letters only). Multiple attempts were required to contact the managing editor to resolve a problem that arose with the editorial office. Figure quality was degraded at publication time relative to submitted figures.
BMJ Open 17.4
weeks
17.4
weeks
n/a 3 5
(excellent)
4
(very good)
Rejected 2020
Motivation: Reviewer comments were very helpful, and editorial office was very responsive to queries.
BMJ Open 11.6
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 3
(good)
3
(good)
Accepted 2020
BMJ Open n/a n/a 3.0
days
n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2020
Motivation: No comments
BMJ Open 8.1
weeks
16.3
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Communication during all stages was better than expected and those I spoke with to query any delays were very responsive. Each stage from submission to receipt of reviews/decision was around 8 weeks, which felt lengthy but not unreasonable.
BMJ Open 8.9
weeks
17.5
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
1
(bad)
Accepted 2019
Motivation: The paper was accepted, but then took 4 months to be published. Asking us to cite other papers post acceptance and discussions about press releases, massively hindered publication. They were slow to respond to our concerns but frequently gave ridiculous deadlines (<24hrs) to respond to them. They pride themselves on being open access and speedy publication. This was not the case for us. Overall a very unprofessional experience and a huge delay.
BMJ Open 5.9
weeks
12.1
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
5
(excellent)
Accepted 2018
Motivation: Happy with the pace with which the journal handled our papers, and appreciated the reviewer comments. Good experience overall.
BMJ Open 4.3
weeks
8.9
weeks
n/a 2 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
BMJ Open 20.6
weeks
25.1
weeks
n/a 5 2
(moderate)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2017
Motivation: Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
BMJ Open 4.3
weeks
13.0
weeks
n/a 3 2
(moderate)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2016
BMJ Open 6.3
weeks
9.7
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2016
Motivation: Name of reviewers, dates, marked corrections are all published along with your article on their website.
BMJ Open 16.9
weeks
21.4
weeks
n/a 3 4
(very good)
4
(very good)
Accepted 2013
BMJ Open 16.9
weeks
16.9
weeks
n/a 3 3
(good)
2
(moderate)
Rejected 2015
Motivation: Although the manuscript concerned a protocol article (which was clearly indicated int he submission process), the review process handled it as if it were a regular article manuscript. we therefore wrote a rebuttal, which was successful, but altogether it took 10 months from initial submission until acceptance, without delay from our side. In addition to this long wait, the Journal was not able to find appropriate reviewers from the mental health field.