An interpretive review of consensus statements on clinical guideline development and their application in the field of traditional and complementary medicine
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 26 July 2016
Accepted: 27 January 2017
Published: 17 February 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|26 Jul 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|19 Aug 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Heather S Boon|
|2 Oct 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Lynda Balneaves|
|6 Nov 2016||Author responded||Author comments - Jennifer Hunter|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|6 Nov 2016||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|20 Nov 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Heather S Boon|
|14 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Lynda Balneaves|
|9 Jan 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Jennifer Hunter|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|9 Jan 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|19 Jan 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Heather S Boon|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|27 Jan 2017||Editorially accepted|
|17 Feb 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12906-017-1613-7|
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.