Journal Guide
Publishing in BMJ Open: Fit, Timeline & Submission Guide
Open access, open peer review, open to all study types: where transparency meets rigor
Should you submit here?
Submit if bMJ Open doesn't reject papers for being 'incremental' or 'not exciting enough.' They reject papers for weak methods, poor reporting, or overstated conclusions. Be careful if bMJ Open checks CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA compliance before papers go to review.
2.3
Impact Factor (2024)
27%
Acceptance Rate
134 days median with review
Time to First Decision
Submission guide
BMJ Open Submission Guide
A package-readiness guide to BMJ Open covering reporting discipline, transparency expectations, and what must be stable before submission.
Journal assessment
Is BMJ Open a Good Journal? An Honest Assessment
BMJ Open fits sound clinical work, protocols, and negative results. When a selective specialty journal is the better call.
Desk rejection
How to Avoid Desk Rejection at BMJ Open
A practical BMJ Open desk-rejection guide covering reporting discipline, study-design fit, and the common mistakes that stop papers before review.
What BMJ Open Publishes
BMJ Open publishes medical research across clinical medicine, public health, and epidemiology without the novelty filter that kills solid science at selective journals. If your methods are rigorous and your conclusions match your data, BMJ Open wants to see it, whether you're reporting a massive RCT or a focused qualitative study. The journal's defining features are open peer review (reviewer reports published alongside papers), continuous publication (online as soon as ready), and genuine acceptance of negative results and protocols.
- Clinical medicine research across all specialties and settings
- Public health and epidemiology studies with methodological rigor
- Health services research and health economics evaluations
- Qualitative research following appropriate reporting guidelines
- All study designs: RCTs, cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional surveys, diagnostic studies
- Study protocols and registered reports (pre-publication of methods)
- Negative results and null findings from well-designed studies
Editor Insight
“BMJ Open exists to publish good science that might not be 'sexy' enough for selective journals. We see papers every week that are methodologically solid, honestly reported, and scientifically valuable but get rejected from The BMJ or specialty journals for 'insufficient novelty.' That's exactly what BMJ Open is for. The trade-off for authors is transparency: your methods, your data, your reviewer reports, all public. If your science can withstand that scrutiny, you'll find a home here.”
What BMJ Open Editors Look For
Methodological soundness over novelty
BMJ Open doesn't reject papers for being 'incremental' or 'not exciting enough.' They reject papers for weak methods, poor reporting, or overstated conclusions. Run your study properly, report it honestly, and you're in the running.
Complete, transparent reporting
Reporting checklists (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, etc.) aren't suggestions. They're requirements. BMJ Open checks compliance and will send papers back for incomplete reporting before peer review even starts.
Conclusions that don't overreach
The fastest path to rejection is claiming your exploratory pilot study 'demonstrates' something definitive. If your findings suggest, indicate, or raise questions, say that. Don't pretend preliminary data is conclusive.
Comfort with open peer review
Reviewer names are published. Reviewer reports are published. Previous manuscript versions are published. If you're uncomfortable with this level of transparency, BMJ Open isn't the right fit.
Patient and public involvement, documented
BMJ Open increasingly expects meaningful patient and public involvement in research design and conduct. This isn't always required, but when relevant, you need to document it clearly.
Data sharing and reproducibility
Data availability statements are mandatory. You need to share data in public repositories when possible, or explain why you can't. 'Available on request' doesn't cut it anymore.
Why Papers Get Rejected
These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past BMJ Open's editorial review:
Skipping reporting checklists
BMJ Open checks CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA compliance before papers go to review. Missing items get flagged immediately. Complete the checklist properly at submission, not as an afterthought.
Treating it as a backup journal without reframing
Papers rejected from The BMJ or specialty journals often land here. That's fine, but you need to remove the inflated framing. BMJ Open values honest reporting, not overselling.
No clear research question
Descriptive studies without a focused question or hypothesis struggle. Even exploratory work needs a clear aim. 'We collected data and looked for patterns' isn't a research question.
Weak justification for sample size
Reviewers will ask why you chose that sample size. 'We recruited as many as we could' isn't good enough for confirmatory studies. Power calculations or clear pragmatic justification are expected.
Ignoring the open access fee
APC is £2,390 (~$3,000 USD). This isn't waived automatically. If you can't pay, apply for a fee waiver at submission. Don't wait until after acceptance and then complain.
Submitting case reports or opinion pieces
BMJ Open doesn't publish individual case reports, opinion pieces, or commentaries. These get immediate desk rejection. Read the article types before you submit.
Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?
The Free Readiness Scan reads your full manuscript against BMJ Open's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.
Insider Tips from BMJ Open Authors
Open peer review means reviewer quality varies visibly
When reviews are published, you see everything. Sometimes reviews are excellent, detailed, constructive. Sometimes they're cursory. This transparency is the point, but it means the process isn't always polished.
Protocols and negative results genuinely welcome
Unlike journals that claim to accept these but rarely do, BMJ Open actually publishes study protocols and null findings. This reduces publication bias and benefits the research community. If you have well-designed negative results, this is one of the few places that will take them seriously.
The 134-day review time is real, and it's slow
Median 134 days to first decision with review is among the slowest in medical publishing. If you need fast turnaround for career reasons (job applications, tenure), factor this in. The trade-off is thoroughness.
Fee waivers exist for low- and middle-income countries
BMJ offers full waivers for authors in countries on the Research4Life Group A list. Discounts available for Group B. Apply at submission. The editorial decision is separate from fee considerations.
Qualitative research has a real home here
BMJ Open publishes qualitative and mixed-methods studies following appropriate reporting standards. This is rare among high-visibility medical journals. If you're doing qualitative health research, this is often your best open-access option.
The 27% acceptance rate means rejection is common
Don't confuse 'publishes all study types' with 'easy to get in.' Most submissions still get rejected, usually for methodological weaknesses or incomplete reporting. The bar for rigor is real.
Continuous publication means no waiting for issues
Papers publish online immediately after acceptance, not in batches. This gets your work out faster than journals that wait for issue assembly.
BMJ Open is part of the BMJ Publishing Group family
Papers sometimes transfer between BMJ journals. If you're rejected from a specialty BMJ journal, editors may suggest BMJ Open. Transfers with reviews can save time.
The BMJ Open Submission Process
Initial submission checks
1-2 weeksStaff verify reporting checklist completion, ethics statements, data availability, and conflicts of interest. Incomplete submissions returned before peer review.
Editorial triage
2-4 weeksEditors assess fit, scope, and basic quality. About 50% of research articles desk-rejected at this stage. Common reasons: outside scope, insufficient methodological rigor, incomplete reporting.
Peer review (open)
8-12 weeks for reviews to come inAt least 2 reviewers. Names will be published alongside the paper if accepted. Reviewers assess methods, reporting completeness, and whether conclusions match data. Not asked to judge novelty or impact.
Editorial decision
134 days median total to first decisionAccept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Decisions based on reviewer input and editor assessment. Revision requests focus on improving reporting and addressing methodological concerns.
Revision and acceptance
Variable; 45 days typical for revision windowAddress reviewer comments. Responses to reviewers will be published. Be thoughtful and professional. Final acceptance after satisfactory revision.
Publication
1-2 weeks after final acceptancePublished online immediately. Prepublication history (previous versions, reviewer reports, author responses) published alongside final article. Fully open access under CC-BY or CC-BY-NC license.
BMJ Open by the Numbers
| 2024 Impact Factor(Clarivate JCR) | 2.4 |
| Acceptance rate | 27% |
| Time to first decision with review | 134 days median |
| Article processing charge | £2,390 GBP (~$3,000 USD) |
| 2024 content views | 5.82 million |
| JIF rank in Medicine, General & Internal | 84/332 |
| Articles published per year | 2,000-2,500 |
| Publication model | Fully open access, continuous |
Before you submit
BMJ Open accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.
Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review. The full report is calibrated to BMJ Open.
Article Types
Research
No strict limit; conciseness valuedOriginal research across all study designs: RCTs, cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional, qualitative, diagnostic, systematic reviews, meta-analyses.
Protocol
Similar to research articlesStudy protocols describing planned research. Allows community feedback before execution and reduces publication bias.
Systematic Review
No strict limitSystematic reviews and meta-analyses following PRISMA reporting guidelines.
Methodology
Similar to research articlesPapers describing new research methods or improvements to existing methods.
Landmark BMJ Open Papers
Papers that defined fields and changed science:
- Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years for 359 diseases and injuries (GBD collaborators, multiple years)
- The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement (Benchimol et al., 2015)
- Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (multiple country studies, 2020-2022)
- Long COVID and post-acute sequelae studies (2020-2023)
- Protocol papers for major public health trials and cohort studies
Preparing a BMJ Open Submission?
Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in BMJ Open and know exactly what editors look for.
Run Free Readiness ScanNeed expert depth? See Expert Review Options
Primary Fields
Browse by Field
Related Journal Guides
- Publishing in The BMJ (British Medical Journal)
- Publishing in PLOS ONE
- Publishing in Scientific Reports
- Publishing in BMJ
- Publishing in RNA
Latest Journal-Specific Guides
- Submission guideBMJ Open Submission GuideA package-readiness guide to BMJ Open covering reporting discipline, transparency expectations, and what must be stable before submission.
- Journal assessmentIs BMJ Open a Good Journal? An Honest AssessmentBMJ Open fits sound clinical work, protocols, and negative results. When a selective specialty journal is the better call.
- Desk rejectionHow to Avoid Desk Rejection at BMJ OpenA practical BMJ Open desk-rejection guide covering reporting discipline, study-design fit, and the common mistakes that stop papers before review.
- Review timelineBMJ Open Review Time: What Authors Can Actually ExpectBMJ Open is not mainly a speed journal. The useful submission question is whether the open-review, broad-medicine model fits your paper better than a tighter specialty venue.
More Guides for This Journal
- Acceptance rateBMJ Open Acceptance Rate: What 27% Actually MeansBMJ Open now reports a 27% acceptance rate on its journal statistics page. The real filter is still methodological soundness, transparent reporting, and broad medical relevance.
- Impact factorBMJ Open Impact Factor 2026: 2.3 - What That Number Actually Means for Your PaperBMJ Open impact factor is 2.3 (JCR 2024). CiteScore 4.5, SJR 1.016. Q2 in JCR, Q1 in Scopus. See what the metrics mean for submissions.
- Publishing costsBMJ Open APC and Open Access: The Clinical Megajournal With Published Peer ReviewsBMJ Open charges GBP 2,163 (~$2,850 USD) for gold open access. Open peer review, clinical focus, institutional deals. Full cost breakdown and comparisons.
- Submission processBMJ Open Submission Process: What Happens After You UploadA workflow-focused BMJ Open submission process guide covering what happens after upload, how open review changes the process, and where papers stall.
- Manuscript prepBMJ Open Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to SeeBMJ Open uses open peer review and mandatory reporting checklists. Missing a checklist is the single most common trigger for desk rejection, and it is entirely preventable.
- Publishing guideBMJ Open SJR and Scopus Metrics: What They Actually MeanBMJ Open's Scopus profile is credible rather than prestigious. The real submission question is whether you need broad medical visibility more than journal selectivity.
Ready to submit to BMJ Open?
A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what BMJ Open editors look for.
Avoid Desk Rejection
Get expert pre-submission review before you submit to BMJ Open. 3-7 day turnaround.
Manuscript Rejected?
Expert revision help to strengthen your manuscript and resubmit with confidence.
Reviewer Response Help
Get expert guidance crafting your response to BMJ Open reviewers.
Reference library
Compare BMJ Open with the broader publishing context
This journal guide is the best starting point for BMJ Open. The reference library covers the surrounding questions authors usually ask next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how neighboring journals compare, and what the submission constraints look like across the field.
Checklist system / operational asset
Elite Submission Checklist
A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.
Flagship report / decision support
Desk Rejection Report
A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.
Dataset / reference hub
Journal Intelligence Dataset
A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Need field-expert depth? See Expert Review Options