Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Medical Ethics

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The no correlation argument: can the morality of conscientious objection be empirically supported? the Italian case

BMC Medical EthicsBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201718:64

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0221-x

Received: 9 May 2017

Accepted: 7 November 2017

Published: 21 November 2017

Back to article

Open Peer Review reports

Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
9 May 2017 Submitted Original manuscript
27 May 2017 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Ans Luyben
6 Jul 2017 Reviewed Reviewer Report - John Appleby
25 Jul 2017 Author responded Author comments - Marco Bo
Resubmission - Version 2
25 Jul 2017 Submitted Manuscript version 2
Publishing
7 Nov 2017 Editorially accepted
21 Nov 2017 Article published 10.1186/s12910-017-0221-x

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 info@biomedcentral.com. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Research Group in Bioethics, University of Turin
(2)
Consulta di Bioetica onlus
(3)
Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Turin

Advertisement