BMJ Open Science has open access (CC BY), open peer review and has an open data policy. There is an Article Processing Charge (APC) to publish in the journal but this has been waived during the launch period. Please review our policy guidelines before submitting.
Submit an article here
We believe that advances in modern technology can help to ensure the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of biomedical research. Thus we have worked with a cutting-edge technology provider, River Valley Technologies, to develop an easy to use submission system that allows for a novel discussion function between our Editors and peer reviewers. It easily integrates with relevant third party sites enabling tangible benefits for our authors. You can log in to our submission system with your ORCID identifier and can submit to BMJ Open Science through BioRxiv. We would love to hear your feedback on the ReView system, so please use the feedback function on the site or contact the editorial office.
Our commitment to reproducibility
BMJ Open Science is encouraging a number of initiatives that will help the work that we publish be reproducible.
Penelope pre-submission manuscript checking
Before submitting your manuscript, consider checking it with Penelope, an online tool that checks the completeness of scientific manuscripts and gives immediate feedback to authors. It has been customised to BMJ Open Science guidelines to help you prepare for submission. Penelope was developed by Penelope Research in collaboration with the EQUATOR Network.
We encourage authors to deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where they will be assigned their own persistent digital object identifiers (DOIs). Please cite this DOI both in your Methods section and as a reference at the end of the article. This inititave helps to ensure that your work is linked, discoverable, and reproducible.
Research Resource Identification Initiative (RRIDs)
BMJ Open Science is pleased to be part of the Resource Identification Initiative, a project aimed at clearly identifying key biological resources used in the course of scientific research. This project helps address concerns of reproducibility by providing unique searchable identifiers, Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs), for critical reagents and tools. RRIDs can be used to link readers to external resources, and they also enable search engines to return all papers in which a particular antibody, organism, or tool was used. We see these as important steps toward ensuring reproducible methods and providing critical data to help researchers identify suitable reagents and tools. We encourage authors to include RRIDs in their manuscripts.
To find a RRID visit here and enter your search term(s). Once you have located an RRID, please insert “RRID:” plus the identifier in the appropriate location in the manuscript. For example:
- Antibodies: “Sections were stained with a rabbit polyclonal antibody against ERK1 (Abgent Cat# AP7251E, RRID: AB_2140114).”
- Cell Lines: “Subjects include the following cell line: CLS Cat# 300384/p699_HeLa_S3, RRID:CVCL_0058.”
- Genetically modified organisms: “Subjects in this study were Fgf9Eks/Fgf9+ mice (RRID: MGI_3840442)…”
- Software tools: “…terminals were mapped with a computer-assisted mapping program (Neurolucida, v 10; MicroBrightField RRID:nif-0000-10294).”
As part of our commitment to reproducibility, we encourage authors to upload relevant reporting checklists as supplementary material. You can find a number of appropriate checklists, such as ARRIVE, at EQUATOR and MERIDIAN.
We particularly encourage compliance with the Landis 4 criteria: randomisation, blinding, sample size calculation, and inclusion/exclusion criteria (doi:10.1038/nature11556), where appropriate. We ask all authors upon submission the following questions. We are keen to be transparent about any limitations of methods used and non-compliance will not necessarily determine the article’s outcome.
Please describe how samples/animals were allocated to experimental groups. If randomisation was not described please explain why this was not possible or was not appropriate.
Please describe whether investigators were blinded to group allocation during the experiment and/or analysis. If blinding was not performed please explain why it was not possible or was not appropriate.
Sample size calculation
Please describe how sample size was determined. If a sample size calculation was not performed please explain why it was not possible or was not appropriate.
Please describe any a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria and any data exclusions with reasons.
Strengths & limitations of the study
We ask authors to write up to 5 bullet points that describe the study’s strengths and limitations, paying particular attention to the criteria above. These will be published in the article. An example of these might be as follows.
- The study protocol has been peer-reviewed and published in an open access journal.
- We modelled stroke in spontaneously hypertensive rats to more closely mimic the human disease, in which hypertension is a common comorbidity.
- We a priori defined our inclusion criteria, report a sample size calculation, randomised animals to group, and blinded treatment allocation during the study and outcome assessment.
- We assessed structural but not functional outcomes.
- This study involved a single laboratory and the findings have not been independently replicated.