Modelling heterogeneity variances in multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis – Are informative priors the better solution?
© Thorlund et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 6 July 2012
Accepted: 27 December 2012
Published: 11 January 2013
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|6 Jul 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|25 Jul 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Lawrence McCandless|
|26 Jul 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Rebecca Turner|
|21 Sep 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Kristian Thorlund|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|21 Sep 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|2 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Lawrence McCandless|
|8 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Rebecca Turner|
|13 Dec 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Kristian Thorlund|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|13 Dec 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|27 Dec 2012||Editorially accepted|
|11 Jan 2013||Article published||10.1186/1471-2288-13-2|
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.