A qualitative study on the term CAM: is there a need to reinvent the wheel?
© Gaboury et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 30 April 2012
Accepted: 9 August 2012
Published: 21 August 2012
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|30 Apr 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|8 Jun 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jeffrey White|
|12 Jun 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - John Astin|
|25 Jul 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Isabelle Gaboury|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|25 Jul 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|28 Jul 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - John Astin|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|9 Aug 2012||Editorially accepted|
|21 Aug 2012||Article published||10.1186/1472-6882-12-131|
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.