Skip to main content

Peer Review reports

From: Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?

Original Submission
21 Oct 2005 Submitted Original manuscript
10 Nov 2005 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Donna Stroup
17 Nov 2005 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Penny Whiting
26 Dec 2005 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 2
26 Dec 2005 Submitted Manuscript version 2
28 Dec 2005 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 3
28 Dec 2005 Submitted Manuscript version 3
5 Jan 2006 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Donna Stroup
6 Jan 2006 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Penny Whiting
31 Jan 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 4
31 Jan 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 4
31 Jan 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 5
31 Jan 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 5
20 Feb 2006 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Penny Whiting
9 Apr 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 6
9 Apr 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 6
25 Apr 2006 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Penny Whiting
11 May 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 7
11 May 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 7
19 May 2006 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Penny Whiting
30 May 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 8
30 May 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 8
11 Jun 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 9
11 Jun 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 9
12 Jun 2006 Author responded Author comments - Beverley Shea
Resubmission - Version 10
12 Jun 2006 Submitted Manuscript version 10
Publishing
13 Jun 2006 Editorially accepted
13 Jun 2006 Article published 10.1186/1471-2288-6-27

You can find further information about peer review here.

Back to article page