Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Building a house on shifting sand: methodological considerations when evaluating the implementation and adoption of national electronic health record systems

  • Amirhossein Takian1, 5, 6Email author,
  • Dimitra Petrakaki2,
  • Tony Cornford3,
  • Aziz Sheikh4 and
  • Nicholas Barber5
BMC Health Services Research201212:105

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-105

Received: 30 November 2011

Accepted: 30 April 2012

Published: 30 April 2012

Back to article

Open Peer Review reports

Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
30 Nov 2011 Submitted Original manuscript
Resubmission - Version 2
Submitted Manuscript version 2
Resubmission - Version 3
Submitted Manuscript version 3
16 Jan 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Chris Showell
31 Jan 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Hardeep Singh
2 Mar 2012 Author responded Author comments - Amirhossein Takian
Resubmission - Version 4
2 Mar 2012 Submitted Manuscript version 4
25 Mar 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Chris Showell
26 Mar 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Hardeep Singh
27 Mar 2012 Author responded Author comments - Amirhossein Takian
Resubmission - Version 5
27 Mar 2012 Submitted Manuscript version 5
Publishing
30 Apr 2012 Editorially accepted
30 Apr 2012 Article published 10.1186/1472-6963-12-105

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 info@biomedcentral.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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Health Studies, School of Health Sciences & Social Care, Brunel University
(2)
Department of Business and Management, School of Business, Management & Economics, University of Sussex
(3)
Department of Management, London School of Economics & Political Science
(4)
eHealth Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh
(5)
Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy
(6)
the National NHS Care Records Service Evaluation Team

Advertisement