Skip to main content

Peer Review reports

From: Safety and efficacy of pilocarpine, cevimeline, and diquafosol compared to artificial tears for the treatment of dry eye: protocol for a systematic review

Original Submission
19 Dec 2020 Submitted Original manuscript
14 Jun 2021 Author responded Author comments - José Gerardo Serrano-Robles
Resubmission - Version 2
14 Jun 2021 Submitted Manuscript version 2
6 Sep 2021 Reviewed Reviewer Report - JULIO CESAR SOUZA-SILVA
14 Oct 2021 Reviewed Reviewer Report - ana aleixo
1 Nov 2021 Author responded Author comments - José Gerardo Serrano-Robles
Resubmission - Version 3
1 Nov 2021 Submitted Manuscript version 3
17 Nov 2021 Reviewed Reviewer Report - JULIO CESAR SOUZA-SILVA
30 Nov 2021 Author responded Author comments - José Gerardo Serrano-Robles
Resubmission - Version 4
30 Nov 2021 Submitted Manuscript version 4
6 Jan 2022 Author responded Author comments - José Gerardo Serrano-Robles
Resubmission - Version 5
6 Jan 2022 Submitted Manuscript version 5
17 Feb 2022 Author responded Author comments - José Gerardo Serrano-Robles
Resubmission - Version 6
17 Feb 2022 Submitted Manuscript version 6
25 Apr 2022 Author responded Author comments - José Gerardo Serrano-Robles
Resubmission - Version 7
25 Apr 2022 Submitted Manuscript version 7
Publishing
12 May 2022 Editorially accepted
28 May 2022 Article published 10.1186/s13643-022-01979-4

You can find further information about peer review here.

Back to article page