Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
4 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2018
Motivation:
extraordinarily quick decision compared to other journal, or indeed this journal under previuos editors
9.7 weeks
10.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
This is the 4th paper that i have submitted (and had 3 accepted) by the BJGP.
As always, the process was rigorous, but fair. Because of the complex statistics in this paper, it was sent out to a 3rd reviewer, a statistician. The comments from all 3 reviewers were very constructive. I made considerable efforts to address these fully, and the end result was a much improved paper. The editor was extremely supportive throughout, dealing promptly and helpfully with a query whilst I was preparing the revised manuscript.
The journal's website with guidance for authors is detailed and clear.
The quality of the submission process for this journal is outstanding, compared to other journals I have used. I would commend the BJGP to authors with suitable manuscripts.
As always, the process was rigorous, but fair. Because of the complex statistics in this paper, it was sent out to a 3rd reviewer, a statistician. The comments from all 3 reviewers were very constructive. I made considerable efforts to address these fully, and the end result was a much improved paper. The editor was extremely supportive throughout, dealing promptly and helpfully with a query whilst I was preparing the revised manuscript.
The journal's website with guidance for authors is detailed and clear.
The quality of the submission process for this journal is outstanding, compared to other journals I have used. I would commend the BJGP to authors with suitable manuscripts.
4.3 weeks
4.5 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
3.9 weeks
4.4 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Rapid handling, excellent reviewers who had constructive suggestions, leading to a thorough revision of the manuscript
4.3 weeks
4.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Really thoughtful and sensible comments from Editor and peer reviewers - excellent process all round.
Immediately accepted after 0.6 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2018
Motivation:
very rapid and helful process
4.4 weeks
4.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Excellent turnaround time, high quality reviews and detailed feedback on the stage of your paper within the cycle.
Immediately accepted after 0.4 weeks
Accepted (im.)
2017
Motivation:
I always receive a rapid, polite response with useful feedback.
12.4 weeks
12.7 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
The reviewer's comments were very thoughtful. It was hard to see what the journal could have done better in terms of making the process simple to follow. The turnaround times were good and the editorial team responsive.
7.0 weeks
7.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
7.0 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
I found the majority of the reviewer's comments constructive and relevant. All authors found the manuscript improved after the peer-review proces. The time from submission to assignment of reviewer was acceptable and the time from submission of revised manuscrip to acceptance was swift.
2.1 weeks
2.4 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
A very good review process. Clear and timely feedback.
3.0 weeks
3.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2015