A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses
© Krahn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 28 September 2012
Accepted: 25 February 2013
Published: 9 March 2013
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|28 Sep 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|17 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Gerta Rücker|
|24 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Stephen Senn|
|26 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Edward Mills|
|29 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Julian Higgins|
|2 Nov 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Wolfgang Viechtbauer|
|5 Nov 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Georgia Salanti|
|21 Dec 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Ulrike Krahn|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|21 Dec 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|3 Jan 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Edward Mills|
|4 Jan 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Georgia Salanti|
|6 Jan 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Stephen Senn|
|14 Jan 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Wolfgang Viechtbauer|
|28 Jan 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Gerta Rücker|
|20 Feb 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Ulrike Krahn|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|20 Feb 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|25 Feb 2013||Editorially accepted|
|9 Mar 2013||Article published||10.1186/1471-2288-13-35|
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.