Incongruous consultation behaviour: results from a UK-wide population survey
© Elliott et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 18 November 2011
Accepted: 20 March 2012
Published: 20 March 2012
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|18 Nov 2011||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|11 Dec 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Peter Croft|
|15 Dec 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Bård Natvig|
|2 Feb 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Alison Elliott|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|2 Feb 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|10 Feb 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Peter Croft|
|13 Feb 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Bård Natvig|
|1 Mar 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Alison Elliott|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|1 Mar 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|6 Mar 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Alison Elliott|
|Resubmission - Version 6|
|6 Mar 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 6|
|20 Mar 2012||Editorially accepted|
|20 Mar 2012||Article published||10.1186/1471-2296-13-21|
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.