Yes, research and most scholarly content in The BMJ and BMJ journals undergo peer review, with The BMJ using an open model for research papers.
Readers want to know if a paper in this family of journals has been checked by experts. The short answer sits above; the rest of this guide breaks down what gets reviewed, how the checks work, and where you can see the proof on a published page.
What Peer Review Means At BMJ
Peer review is an expert check before publication. Editors invite field specialists to judge study design, methods, reporting, and claims. The process shapes the final paper and can lead to revisions or rejection. At this publisher, that check pairs with transparency steps that let readers see more of the process after acceptance.
| Content Type | External Review | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Research (original studies) | Yes, external experts | Signed reviews and a prepublication file appear with accepted papers in The BMJ. |
| Research Methods And Reporting | Yes, external experts | Checked for methods clarity and reporting standards. |
| Analysis | Yes, external experts | Assessed for rigour and interpretation. |
| Education | Yes, external experts | Reviewed to verify accuracy and teaching value. |
| Editorials, News, Features by editors | No external review | Edited internally; no outside referee reports at The BMJ. |
| BMJ Open articles | Yes, external experts | Peer review; some records include public review history. |
Open Peer Review At The BMJ
The BMJ uses an open model for research and analysis papers. Reviewers sign their reports. After acceptance, the journal posts a prepublication history with the article. That file set can include prior versions, reviewer comments, author responses, and the committee report. Readers can see how critiques shaped the work.
That transparency is spelled out on the journal’s publishing model page. You can read the journal’s note here: publishing model. The page also explains which sections do not use outside review, such as editor-written news, editorials, and features.
Close Variant: How BMJ Handles Peer Review Across Journals
BMJ runs many titles. The exact model can vary by journal. Some use double anonymised review. Some use triple anonymised review. Each journal lists its approach on its site. The Author Hub gives a clear overview of these models and outlines reviewer roles, timing, and ethics.
For more detail on models across titles, see the Author Hub overview of the process: peer review process. That page describes the anonymised setups and reminds readers to check the individual journal page for the exact rules.
What You Can See On A Published Page
On many research articles in The BMJ, a link titled “Prepublication history” sits near the abstract or at the foot of the article. Click it and you get reviewer reports, author replies, and earlier drafts. Signed reviews give context on why changes were requested and how authors responded.
BMJ Open and other titles may present peer review history or statements on the article record. Some will show decision letters and point-by-point responses. Where a journal uses anonymised review, identities can stay hidden, yet readers still gain a window into the checks performed.
Scope: What Gets External Review And What Does Not
Editors choose the route. Research and other scholarly sections go to outside experts. Editorials, news items, and staff-written features at The BMJ receive internal editing without external referee reports. That line matters when you cite a piece or explain it to patients, students, or colleagues.
Practical Ways To Tell If A Piece Was Reviewed
Open the article page and scan for a peer review statement or a prepublication history link. Check the article type at the top. Use the “Resources for reviewers” and policy pages to match the section to the model used by that journal.
Submission Path And Decision Flow
Here is a plain-English run-through of the path from upload to publication across BMJ titles.
1) Editorial Triage
Editors judge scope, novelty, and basic reporting. Items outside scope can be declined without review or offered a transfer to a better-matched title in the portfolio.
2) Reviewer Invite
Editors select qualified reviewers with suitable expertise and no conflicts. Invites include the manuscript, a summary, and a request for a report by a set date.
3) The Review
Reviewers rate study design, statistics, reporting checklists, and claims. They flag missing data and raise ethics or consent issues. They also suggest fixes that would make the paper clearer and sounder.
4) Decision And Revisions
Editors weigh the reports and decide: accept, revise, or reject. Revisions can repeat until the paper meets the bar. For The BMJ research sections, the journal later posts the prepublication history with the accepted version.
5) Proofs And Publication
After acceptance, production edits for clarity, style, and figure quality. The final version posts online with links to any review history that the journal shares.
Ethics, Transparency, And Standards
BMJ journals align with policies from leading editorial groups. The portfolio follows guidance from COPE, ICMJE, WAME, and EQUATOR. These bodies set expectations for authorship, data reporting, trial registration, and research integrity. The policy index groups these standards for quick checks during writing or review.
Strengths And Limits Of The BMJ Approach
Strengths You Can Rely On
- Signed reports on The BMJ research and analysis papers raise accountability.
- Public prepublication files let readers track changes and judge the rigour of the process.
- Portfolio-wide standards align with global editorial groups, which builds consistency across titles.
- Patient reviewers add a user lens to selected submissions.
Limits To Keep In Mind
- Editorials, news, and staff features at the flagship journal do not use external referee reports.
- Across the portfolio, models vary; some titles use anonymised review, so named reports may not appear.
- Open review can make some experts decline invites, which can slow the process in busy fields.
How To Check Peer Review On A Specific Paper
Step 1: Identify The Article Type
Look under the title. If it says Research, Research Methods And Reporting, Analysis, or Education, peer review is expected. If it says Editorial, News, or Feature and the byline lists staff editors, that section uses internal editing instead of outside reports at the flagship journal.
Step 2: Find The Review Files Or Statement
Scan the right rail and the end of the article for links to prepublication history or decision letters. On BMJ Open, look for public peer review statements on the article record.
Step 3: Cross-Check The Journal’s Policy Page
Every title has a page that explains how review works. If the article page lacks a clear link, open the journal’s “For authors” or “Peer review” page and confirm the model used.
Typical Timelines And What A Reviewer Checks
Timelines vary by title and field. A reviewer report often covers study aim, design, sample size, statistics, outcome measures, data sharing, and clarity of tables and figures. Reviewers can request raw data, protocols, or trial registry links. Editors look for clear, honest reporting and fair claims linked to results.
| Area | What Reviewers Look For | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | Design fit, bias checks, blinding, controls | Sound methods support reliable results. |
| Statistics | Appropriate tests, power, model choices | Correct analysis keeps claims honest. |
| Reporting | CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA use | Standard checklists raise clarity. |
| Ethics | Approvals, consent, data access | Safeguards protect participants. |
| Interpretation | Claims match data; limits stated | Prevents overreach. |
Tips For Authors Submitting To BMJ Titles
Match Your Work To The Right Section
Check article type lists on the journal site and pick the section that fits your study and audience. A tight fit lifts the odds of a fair read.
Follow Reporting Standards From The Start
Use EQUATOR checklists and trial registration where needed. Clean figures and data access statements speed review and cut back-and-forth.
Expect Signed Reports In The Flagship Journal
For research and analysis, be ready for named feedback that will post with the final paper. Keep replies polite and precise. Point to changed lines and supply tracked versions.
Reader Takeaways
Most scholarly content has outside expert checks. The flagship journal posts signed reports and a full prepublication file for research and analysis. Staff-written sections do not use outside referee reports. Across the wider portfolio, models vary by title, so check the journal’s policy page and the article record.