Disagreements with implications: diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement
© Forlini and Racine; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
Received: 01 April 2009
Accepted: 06 July 2009
Published: 06 July 2009
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|1 Apr 2009||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|12 May 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Eduardo Rodriguez|
|13 May 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Sergio Litewka|
|10 Jun 2009||Author responded||Author comments - Eric Racine|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|10 Jun 2009||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|19 Jun 2009||Author responded||Author comments - Eric Racine|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|19 Jun 2009||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|6 Jul 2009||Editorially accepted|
|6 Jul 2009||Article published||10.1186/1472-6939-10-9|
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.