Comparison of phacotrabeculectomy versus phacocanaloplasty in the treatment of patients with concomitant cataract and glaucoma
© Matlach et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 5 July 2012
Accepted: 22 January 2013
Published: 29 January 2013
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|5 Jul 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|29 Aug 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jimmy Lai|
|7 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Dexter Yu lung LEUNG|
|11 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Matthias Christian Grieshaber|
|9 Nov 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Juliane Matlach|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|9 Nov 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|22 Nov 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Matthias Christian Grieshaber|
|23 Nov 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Jimmy Lai|
|12 Dec 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Dexter Yu lung LEUNG|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|22 Jan 2013||Editorially accepted|
|29 Jan 2013||Article published||10.1186/1471-2415-13-1|
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.