2. Study population 23 peer-reviewed publications (21 in Medline, one under “Liratsopulos” ) 3 Editorials, 2 systematic reviews, 1 methodology, 17 original data 13 first author, 10 co-author 6 BMC, 17 non-BMC

3. Comparative evaluation against 4 domains Speed Peer-review process Editorial style – space Impact / Dissemination

4. How does it compare? 1 Speed: Usually faster to much faster in BMC This is true for all publication “stages”, i.e. –Submission to peer-review –Peer-review to decision 1 –Re-review to decision 2 –Decision 2 to publication

5. How does it compare? 2 Peer-review –Named –Expert / authoritative / international – “adds value” –Supportive (with one or two exceptions, of “predatory” peer-review)

6. How does it compare? 3 Style and space –BMC journals usually allow for more freedom of style and for more space (additional files)

7. How does it compare? 4 Visibility – press release – dissemination – impact ( perception of ) –Different: BMC: Download counts, “website highlights” Non BMC: Some journals have better “citation tracking” IMPACT usually higher / perceived to be higher in non-open access journal, but global access perceived to be higher in open access journals –Same: Press-releases, content e-mail alerts

8. Limitations to the generalisability of the “study” 1 Unexplored potential 1: Too many BMC (as well as non-BMC) journals only published in 4 BMC ones

9. Limitations to the generalisability of the “study” 1 Unexplored potential 2: New suite of “practitioner” ( as opposed to “researcher” ) Journals, with emphasis on case-series etc. ( Very suitable for Public Health, see Wanless II ) Different scientific paradigm

10. What could (perhaps) be better Timeliness of letting authors know of peer-review feedback – why does it always have to go “back to editor” first?