High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease
© Vollenweider et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 4 January 2011
Accepted: 13 June 2011
Published: 13 June 2011
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|4 Jan 2011||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|8 Jan 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Robert Kane|
|1 Feb 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Doug Altman|
|23 Feb 2011||Author responded||Author comments - Milo Puhan|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|23 Feb 2011||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|3 Apr 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Doug Altman|
|10 Apr 2011||Author responded||Author comments - Milo Puhan|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|10 Apr 2011||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|13 Jun 2011||Editorially accepted|
|13 Jun 2011||Article published||10.1186/1741-7015-9-73|
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.