Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 30 June 2016
Accepted: 22 February 2017
Published: 3 March 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|30 Jun 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|6 Sep 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Matthew Page|
|8 Sep 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Sarah Nolan|
|5 Oct 2016||Author responded||Author comments - Bruno da Costa|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|5 Oct 2016||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|16 Dec 2016||Author responded||Author comments - Bruno da Costa|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|16 Dec 2016||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|4 Feb 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Bruno da Costa|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|4 Feb 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|22 Feb 2017||Editorially accepted|
|3 Mar 2017||Article published||10.1186/s13643-017-0441-7|
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.