Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
11 Oct 2013 Submitted Original manuscript
15 Nov 2013 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Lars L Gustafsson
21 Nov 2013 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Jørund Straand
20 Dec 2013 Author responded Author comments - Celine Buffel du Vaure
Resubmission - Version 2
20 Dec 2013 Submitted Manuscript version 2
Resubmission - Version 3
Submitted Manuscript version 3
22 Jan 2014 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Lars L Gustafsson
24 Jan 2014 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Jørund Straand
17 Mar 2014 Author responded Author comments - Celine Buffel du Vaure
Resubmission - Version 4
17 Mar 2014 Submitted Manuscript version 4
Resubmission - Version 5
Submitted Manuscript version 5
21 Mar 2014 Author responded Author comments - Celine Buffel du Vaure
Resubmission - Version 6
21 Mar 2014 Submitted Manuscript version 6
Publishing
25 Mar 2014 Editorially accepted
28 Apr 2014 Article published 10.1186/1741-7015-12-69

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 are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement