Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
10.7 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
5
5
Accepted
2023
Motivation: The submission and review processes were smooth. The reviewers provided constructive comments to make the manuscript stronger and clearer. In addition, the administrative editor was so caring to help us revise the manuscript aligned with the journal guideline. It was a great experience of our submission.
30.3 weeks
43.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
1
Accepted
2022
Motivation: All in all the review process took > 11 months. I almost lost my funding for the article processing charge due to the long duration. Responses to emails looked like standard templates to me and were not helpful. Reviews were good although there were no comments on the statistics (meta-analysis) which indicates that this section of the manuscript was perfect (seems unlikely) or the reviewers were not familiar with the methodology.
Drawn back before first editorial decision after 281.0 days
Drawn back
2022
Motivation: We waited several months for the first decision. The editorial assistants were responsive and informed us that a review was received and they are still waiting for another review. Ultimately, we decided to withdraw the paper. Because BMJ Open has an open review process, we requested the reviews of Reviewer 1. They sent us the review, which we used to modify the paper. We resubmitted our paper to a different journal (which took only 6 weeks to get 4 reviewers!). I don't recommend submitting a manuscript to this journal.
21.7 weeks
26.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2021
Motivation: During the process, the status has remained in『waiting for reviewer selection』for more than two months. I understand that lacking reviewers are prevalent now. Reviewers generally read carefully and gave helpful comments.
9.4 weeks
9.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2019
4.1 weeks
14.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
0
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.
17.4 weeks
17.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
5
4
Rejected
2020
Motivation: Reviewer comments were very helpful, and editorial office was very responsive to queries.
11.6 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
3
3
Accepted
2020
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
Motivation: No comments
8.1 weeks
16.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
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.
8.9 weeks
17.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
1
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.
5.9 weeks
12.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
5
Accepted
2018
Motivation: Happy with the pace with which the journal handled our papers, and appreciated the reviewer comments. Good experience overall.
4.3 weeks
8.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2017
20.6 weeks
25.1 weeks
n/a
5 reports
2
4
Accepted
2017
Motivation: Reviews were a little bit confusing, but overall review process was OK.
4.3 weeks
13.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
2
2
Rejected
2016
6.3 weeks
9.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2016
Motivation: Name of reviewers, dates, marked corrections are all published along with your article on their website.
16.9 weeks
21.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Accepted
2013
16.9 weeks
16.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
3
2
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.