Skip to main content
Journal Guides7 min readUpdated Oct 11, 2026

BMJ Open SJR and Scopus Metrics: What They Actually Mean

BMJ Open's Scopus profile is credible rather than prestigious. The real submission question is whether you need broad medical visibility more than journal selectivity.

By Manusights Editorial Team•
Editorial processThe Manusights editorial team researches and maintains these guides using source review, field-specific analysis, and our documented editorial process.How we work

Next step

Choose the next useful decision step first.

Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.

Open Journal Fit ChecklistPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.Run Free Readiness Scan
Journal context

BMJ Open at a glance

Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.

Full journal profile
Acceptance rate27%Overall selectivityTime to decision134 days medianFirst decisionOpen access APC£2,535Gold OA option

What makes this journal worth targeting

  • BMJ Open's scope and readership determine whether the journal is a useful target.
  • Scope specificity matters more than headline metrics for most manuscript decisions.
  • BMJ Open about page reports an acceptance rate of 27% for BMJ Open. BMJ Open reports a 27% acceptance rate on the public journal statistics page.

When to look elsewhere

  • When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope, borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
  • If timeline matters: BMJ Open takes 134 days median. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
  • If OA is required: gold OA costs £2,535. Check institutional agreements before submitting.

Quick answer: BMJ Open has a credible Scopus profile, not a flagship one. BMJ Open's own About page (Journal Statistics 2025, read October 2026) prints SJR 0.93, CiteScore 4.1 and CiteScore rank 129/669. Scopus-based sources placed it at SJR 1.016, impact score 2.38, global rank 4702, and h-index 176 in 2024. That is enough to confirm real visibility and indexing strength in broad medicine.

The useful submission question is whether your paper needs a reputable, open, technically sound venue with broad discoverability, not whether the journal sits in the prestige tier.

Direct answer

If your question is whether BMJ Open is a real Scopus-indexed medical journal with solid discoverability, the answer is yes.

Metric
Current value
What it tells you
SJR
0.93 (2025, per the journal's About page; 1.016 in 2024)
prestige-weighted influence is credible and above the field median
Impact Score
2.38
citation density is modest but real
Global rank
4702
this is a visible broad-medicine journal, not a citation flagship
h-index
176
the archive has real depth and reuse
Best quartile
Q1
broad-category placement is still top quartile
Coverage history
2011-2025
this is an established journal, not a short-lived launch

That profile matters because BMJ Open is built for breadth, transparency, and accessibility, not scarcity-driven prestige.

Overview

The useful summary is that BMJ Open remains a credible broad-medicine open-access venue, but its metric profile is clearly different from selective general-medicine flagships. The numbers are good enough to support trust and discoverability. They are not the reason to submit.

For the broader fit picture, see our BMJ Open journal profile.

What changed in 2024

The 2024 picture is mixed.

  • SJR moved up from 0.971 in 2023 to 1.016 in 2024
  • impact score moved down from 2.53 to 2.38
  • global rank moved from 4661 to 4702

That combination matters. The prestige-weighted citation signal improved a little, while shorter-window citation density softened and the overall rank slipped slightly. For authors, that usually means the journal remains credible but not stronger than it was a few years ago.

Ten-year SJR and Scopus trend

Year
SJR
Impact Score
Global Rank
2024
1.016
2.38
4702
2023
0.971
2.53
4661
2022
1.059
2.97
3829
2021
0.982
2.80
4209
2020
1.132
2.43
3623
2019
1.247
2.63
3048
2018
1.321
2.49
2818
2017
1.372
2.64
2683
2016
1.474
2.70
2441
2015
1.528
3.06
2302
2014
1.404
2.81
2568

The trend shows a journal that settled into a lower-citation equilibrium after its earlier years. That is not a trust problem. It just means the journal's role is broad dissemination of sound work, not concentration of prestige.

What the trend means in practice

For authors, the trend usually means:

  • the journal is appropriate when discoverability matters more than selectivity
  • broad medical indexing is real, even if citation concentration is modest
  • papers do not need to be field-defining to fit
  • the value proposition is openness, scope breadth, and technical soundness

That last point matters most. BMJ Open explicitly publishes protocols, smaller specialist studies, and negative studies, and it uses open peer review. The metric profile matches that editorial model.

How BMJ Open compares with realistic neighbors

Journal
Relative 2024 profile
What the metric profile usually signals
BMJ Open
SJR 1.016
broad open-access medicine venue focused on soundness and transparency
PLOS ONE
similar broad-volume lane
good when cross-discipline scale matters more than journal identity
JAMA Network Open
much stronger prestige concentration
stronger brand and citation profile, but also a harder editorial screen
The BMJ
materially stronger prestige lane
better when the paper has broader practice or policy consequence

This is the useful comparison. BMJ Open is not trying to be The BMJ. It is the journal you pick when the work is sound, useful, and worth broad access even if it is not a flagship-general-medicine story.

What editors are really screening for

The official journal pages are fairly direct about the product:

  • research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas
  • article types from protocols to trials to meta-analyses
  • specialist and negative studies are welcome
  • peer review is open and prepublication history is published

That is why the metric profile looks the way it does. The journal is optimized for breadth and transparency, not for extreme selectivity.

What we see in BMJ Open Metric Questions

For BMJ Open metric questions, three mistakes recur.

The prestige-anxiety mistake. Authors sometimes underrate the journal because the numbers are lower than flagship titles, even when the manuscript actually needs broad open visibility more than prestige signaling.

The wrong-audience mistake. Another common miss is submitting work that is too narrow even for a broad journal because the framing never makes clear why a general medical audience should care.

The fallback-only mistake. We also see teams treat BMJ Open as a pure backup venue. That usually leads to lazy framing. The journal still expects a clear rationale, clean reporting, and a paper that benefits from broad access. The SJR confirms credibility. It does not mean the editorial bar is absent.

That is the practical meaning of the metrics. They tell you this is a real medical journal with durable discoverability, but not a prestige shortcut.

What these metrics mean for authors

For authors, the current profile says:

  • publication here is credible and index-visible
  • the journal is better for broad dissemination than prestige signaling
  • open peer review and open access are part of the product, not side details
  • the fit improves when the paper is methodologically sound and broadly readable

The h-index of 176 matters because it shows the archive has genuine reuse. This is not a marginal venue. It is simply serving a different role from a flagship title.

Submit If / Think Twice If

Submit if:

  • the study is sound and useful but not a prestige-journal story
  • broad discoverability matters more than selectivity
  • the manuscript benefits from open peer review and full open access
  • the paper is medically relevant across a wide potential readership

Think twice if:

  • the submission logic depends mainly on the Q1 label
  • you need strong prestige signaling for the next career step
  • the paper is so narrow that even a broad journal audience will not care
  • the manuscript still has unresolved reporting or framing problems

Readiness check

Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.

See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.

Get free manuscript previewPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.See example reports

What should drive the decision after the metrics check

The better question is whether the manuscript is truly a BMJ Open paper in its current form.

That is why the next useful reads are:

  • BMJ Open journal profile

If the goal is broad indexing, credible medical visibility, and open access, the fit can be strong. If the goal is mainly prestige, the metric profile is warning you to be honest about what the journal is built to do. A BMJ Open submission framing check is a direct way to test that before submission.

Practical verdict

BMJ Open still has a credible Scopus profile and remains a legitimate broad-medicine venue. The 2024 numbers are not exciting, but they are solid enough to support trust and discoverability.

For authors, the metric question is simple. This is a good journal when openness, breadth, and technical soundness matter more than prestige concentration.

Frequently asked questions

BMJ Open's own About page, read October 2026, lists an SJR of 0.93 in its 2025 journal statistics. Scopus-based aggregators list 1.016 for 2024, which keeps it in Q1 in the broad medicine category.

Current Scopus-based sources place BMJ Open's 2024 impact score at 2.38, with a global rank of 4702 and h-index of 176.

Because BMJ Open publishes a much broader volume and range of sound studies, including protocols, smaller specialist work, and negative studies, so selectivity and citation concentration are not the same as a flagship journal.

No. The real question is whether you want credible indexing, broad discoverability, and open peer review more than prestige signaling.

References

Sources

  1. 1. BMJ Open metrics page, Resurchify.
  2. 2. BMJ Open homepage, BMJ.
  3. 3. BMJ Open authors page, BMJ.

Before you upload

Choose the next useful decision step first.

Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.

Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.

Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.

Open Journal Fit ChecklistRun Free Readiness Scan

Put the guidance to work

Choose the practical next step for your research.

Start with the question in front of you, or use the guided learning path when you want a clearer view of the full publishing process.

Find my next step Choose a research stage or a specific kind of help.Learn in Academy Follow a guided path through the publishing process.
Internal navigation

Where to go next

Start here

Same journal, next question

Supporting reads

Conversion step

Back to all articles