The improving outcomes in intermittent exotropia study: outcomes at 2 years after diagnosis in an observational cohort
© Buck et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 24 May 2011
Accepted: 18 January 2012
Published: 18 January 2012
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|24 May 2011||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|21 Jul 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Brian Mohney|
|2 Sep 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jaime Tejedor|
|27 Sep 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Cathy Williams|
|30 Sep 2011||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Huibert Jan Simonsz|
|16 Nov 2011||Author responded||Author comments - Deborah Buck|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|16 Nov 2011||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|17 Jan 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Deborah Buck|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|17 Jan 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|18 Jan 2012||Editorially accepted|
|18 Jan 2012||Article published||10.1186/1471-2415-12-1|
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.