Familiar ethical issues amplified: how members of research ethics committees describe ethical distinctions between disaster and non-disaster research
- Catherine M. Tansey1,
- James Anderson†2, 3,
- Renaud F. Boulanger†1, 4,
- Lisa Eckenwiler†5,
- John Pringle†1,
- Lisa Schwartz†1, 6 and
- Matthew Hunt7, 8Email author
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 13 January 2017
Accepted: 19 June 2017
Published: 28 June 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|13 Jan 2017||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|27 Feb 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Hallvard Fossheim|
|4 Mar 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Signe Mezinska|
|15 Mar 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Roger Strand|
|12 Apr 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Catherine Tansey|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|12 Apr 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|22 May 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Catherine Tansey|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|22 May 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|12 Jun 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Catherine Tansey|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|12 Jun 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|19 Jun 2017||Editorially accepted|
|28 Jun 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12910-017-0203-z|
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.