BMJ Open Time to First Decision: Median 134 Days With Review, 6 Without

BMJ journals show status through Where Is My Paper? (whereismypaper.bmj.com) and through your ScholarOne Author Dashboard. BMJ's Author Hub documents the labels:

• "Awaiting Editorial Production Assistant Processing" means an Editorial Production Assistant is carrying out quality checks, at which point you may need to provide further information before the article is sent for peer review.
• "Awaiting PRM Assignment" is not one of the labels BMJ's Author Hub documents, and BMJ's public pages do not expand "PRM", so treat any expansion you read online, including the one this page used to give, as a guess. If you see it, use the Where Is My Paper? tracker for the plain-language meaning of your manuscript's current status.

• "Awaiting Editor Assignment" means the article has passed the initial quality checks and is being assigned to an editor who will evaluate it for scope, quality and fit. Papers that do not meet these criteria are rejected.

• "Awaiting Reviewer Selection" means the article meets the journal's scope and has been approved for peer review, and the editorial team is finding suitable external reviewers.

• "Peer Review in Progress" means the article has secured the minimum number of required reviewers, who are given 2 weeks to submit their review.

• "Awaiting Editor Decision" means the reviews are in and the editor is weighing them.

BMJ publishes no standard duration for the early statuses. If you are concerned about a long wait, the contact details are on BMJ Open's contact page.

BMJ Open is a broad-scope, soundness-first medical journal that covers clinical medicine, public health, health services research, and medical education. Three factors help explain a reviewed decision taking months:

Open peer review logistics. BMJ Open operates fully open peer review: reviewers are required to sign their reviews with their name, position and institution, authors know who reviewed their work, and the reviews are published online alongside the article if it is published.

Reviewer availability. BMJ's Author Hub says reviewers give their time voluntarily, that several reviewers may be invited before the required number can be arranged, and that the invitation process starts again if a reviewer fails to deliver a review.

Reporting-guideline checks. BMJ asks for the reporting checklist as a file titled Research Checklist that lists the page where each item appears, and an Editorial Production Assistant carries out quality checks before the article goes to peer review. A checklist that points only to "see Methods" gives the checker nothing to verify.

BMJ Open's published medians are the best calibration. A decision without review has a median of 6 days, and a decision after review has a median of 134 days.

• A decision within the first couple of weeks: Most likely an editorial decision without review.

• In review for a few months: Within the published median of 134 days. No read on quality.

• Well past 134 days with no change in status: Longer than the published median. A polite inquiry is appropriate.

BMJ Open reviewers focus on methodological soundness, not novelty or significance. BMJ Open's instructions for reviewers say the journal does not ask reviewers to judge importance or breadth of appeal. Reviewers are asked to help ensure studies were conducted properly, are scientifically credible, are reported according to the appropriate guidelines and are ethical. The review questions cover:

• Study design and methods: are they appropriate for the research question?

• Reporting completeness: does the paper follow the relevant reporting guideline?

• Statistical analysis: are the methods correct and the conclusions supported?

• Research and publication ethics

• Whether the abstract accurately reflects the content

A paper with solid methods, appropriate reporting, and supported conclusions meets BMJ Open's stated bar regardless of whether the findings are unexpected or the sample is large.

Check status on Where Is My Paper? first. Given the 134-day median with review, contact the editorial office only when your paper is well past that median with no change in status. When you do:

• Use the email address or the manuscript submission system listed on BMJ Open's contact page (info.bmjopen@bmj.com)

• Reference your manuscript ID

• Keep the message brief: request a status update, note when you submitted

• Reject: Usually with reviewer comments explaining why. The methodology problems identified are genuine and worth addressing before submitting elsewhere. BMJ Open will consider appeals made within 30 days of the reject decision if authors can demonstrate that the decision was flawed or not in line with the journal's policies.

• Major revision: Expect requests to clarify methods, add limitations, update the reporting checklist, or address specific reviewer questions.

• Minor revision: BMJ Open publishes no standard turnaround; check the deadline in your decision letter.

• Accept subject to revision: Possible for well-prepared manuscripts.

Before submitting a revision with significant methodological changes, a BMJ Open submission readiness check can assess whether your response addresses the reviewers' core concerns.

For manuscripts targeting BMJ Open, three failure patterns generate the most consistent desk returns and extended review timelines. We find these across manuscripts we've reviewed through our BMJ Open submission readiness check.

The reporting checklist completed with "see Methods" instead of specific page citations. BMJ asks for the reporting checklist to list the page where each item appears. We observe that papers completing CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA checklists with generic references generate desk returns or reviewer revision requests.

Papers that map each checklist item to a specific page number and section heading clear this screen; papers that complete checklists perfunctorily are flagged before external review begins. The item most commonly completed incorrectly: allocation concealment for RCTs and selection of participants for observational studies.

The open peer review response letter that would not survive public scrutiny. BMJ Open publishes reviewer reports and author replies publicly alongside the final article. We observe that authors who write responses appropriate for private exchange but not for public reading create problems during editorial review. The standard: write the response letter as if 500 researchers in your field will read it alongside the paper.

Concede valid points clearly, explain your reasoning for defended decisions, and avoid language that reads as dismissive. Papers whose revision letters meet this standard move through the editorial cycle faster.

The statistical reporting that omits confidence intervals asked for in BMJ Open's abstract guidance. BMJ Open's instructions ask for main results with 95% confidence intervals for quantitative studies in the structured abstract, together with the exact level of statistical significance where appropriate. We find that many of the manuscripts we review for BMJ family journals report only p-values for primary and secondary endpoints.

Papers that pre-empt this by reporting effect sizes and 95% CIs throughout the results section move through the revision cycle without this specific request.