|Title||Royal College of General Practitioners|
Professional Publisher (Small)
|URL||bjgpopen.org and bjgp.org|
|Owner||Royal College of General Practitioners|
|Address||30 Euston Square London NW1 2FB|
|Copyright and Licensing||BJGP Open: https://bjgpopen.org/authors/bjgp-open-editorial-process-and-policies
|Copyright and Licensing Policy||BJGP Open: Authors of BJGP Open articles retain copyright and the default license type is CC BY 4.0. The articles are fully available on publication via the BJGP Open website and are also sent to PubMed Central, where they are also made fully available. Authors may self-archive their articles, however please acknowledge the source and link to the final published version, and label the article CC BY 4.0 where applicable.
BJGP: Authors of open access articles retain copyright. Open access articles are published under a Creative Commons licence that allows reuse subject only to the use being non-commercial and to the article being fully attributed. The default license type is CC BY-NC 4.0 license; however, requests for CC BY 4.0 license will be granted if specified.
|Complaint email||BJGP Open (info in the Appeal section): https://bjgpopen.org/authors/bjgp-open-editorial-process-and-policies
BJGP (info in the Appeal section): https://bjgp.org/authors/bjgp-editorial-process-and-policies
|Complaint policy||BJGP & BJGP Open:
If your article has been rejected and you feel that a mistake has been made, you can appeal. Write to the Editor within 2 months of receiving the Editor’s decision, setting out where you think the reviewers’ reviews or the Editor’s letter is incorrect. At this stage, you must not make any revisions to take account of reviewers’ comments. The appeal process will go ahead if a reviewer or the Editor could have made a mistake with the technical aspects of a study, misinterpreted some aspect of the article, or if bias could have entered into the reviewers’ comments. The process is unlikely to be used where an article has been rejected on the basis of editorial policy. If the Editor feels that there are grounds for challenging the original decision, the views of the Editorial Board will be sought and the article may be sent out to a new reviewer. The Editor will be guided by this reviewer’s report. Reviewers used in the appeal process will usually be members of the Editorial Board. Appeal reviewers will be sent a copy of the appeal letter and the previous reviews. The final decision will be made with reference to the following criteria:
the article is new, innovative, representing a discovery
it is timely or interesting
it is methodologically sound
the quality of analysis and data presentation
the conclusions warranted
the quality of discussion, analysis, and writing; and
the importance and impact
|Publication charge link||BJGP Open: https://bjgpopen.org/authors/bjgp-open-editorial-process-and-policies
|Publication charge policy||BJGP Open: Payment of the article processing charge is on acceptance for publication. The APC for BJGP Open has been set at £1000 (plus VAT where applicable) for Research articles and £250 (plus VAT where applicable) for Practice & Policy articles and refunds will not normally be issued. Payment for this transaction will be processed by PayPal.
BJGP: No payment is required for paywalled articles. For open access articles payment of the article processing charge is on acceptance for publication. The APC for the BJGP has been set at £2000 (plus VAT where applicable) and refunds will not normally be issued. Payment for this transaction will be processed by PayPal.
|OASPA Compliant OA Journals||1 (BJGP Open)|
|Initiatives||BJGP has been a hybrid journal for over 10 years. It has an open archive so that all content older than the current 12 months is freely available (on bjgp.org and PubMed Central)|
|Peer review process||BJGP Open: https://bjgpopen.org/page/peer-review
|Peer review policy||For both journals: We operate an open peer review system, so authors and reviewers are known to each other. Submissions that pass initial screening are sent to up to three expert reviewers. We aim to give authors an initial decision as quickly as possible.|