Comparing influenza vaccine efficacy against mismatched and matched strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis
© Tricco et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 6 December 2012
Accepted: 21 May 2013
Published: 25 June 2013
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|6 Dec 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|28 Dec 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Mark Loeb|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|28 Dec 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|11 Jan 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Heath Kelly|
|11 Feb 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Walter Emil Philipp Beyer|
|14 Feb 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Nancy Cox|
|23 Mar 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Mark Loeb|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|23 Mar 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|28 Mar 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Heath Kelly|
|15 Apr 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Walter Emil Philipp Beyer|
|14 May 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Mark Loeb|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|14 May 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|21 May 2013||Editorially accepted|
|25 Jun 2013||Article published||10.1186/1741-7015-11-153|
How does Open Peer Review work?
Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.
You can find further information about the peer review system here.