This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures—a systematic review
© The Author(s). 2016
Received: 23 December 2015
Accepted: 17 May 2016
Published: 26 May 2016
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org.
|23 Dec 2015||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|5 Feb 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Melanie Bell|
|18 Mar 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Haryana Dhillon|
|13 Apr 2016||Author responded||Author comments - Åsa Nordin|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|13 Apr 2016||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|12 May 2016||Author responded||Author comments - Åsa Nordin|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|12 May 2016||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|17 May 2016||Editorially accepted|
|26 May 2016||Article published||10.1186/s12874-016-0167-6|
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 email@example.com. 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.