Comparative effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 11 December 2016
Accepted: 8 June 2017
Published: 19 June 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|11 Dec 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|9 Jan 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Rieke Van Der Graaf|
|23 Jan 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Nathan Emmerich|
|26 Jan 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Richard Ashcroft|
|7 Mar 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Reidar Lie|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|7 Mar 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|3 May 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Richard Ashcroft|
|14 May 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Nathan Emmerich|
|22 May 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Rieke Van Der Graaf|
|7 Jun 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Reidar Lie|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|7 Jun 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|8 Jun 2017||Editorially accepted|
|19 Jun 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12910-017-0202-0|
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.