This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
The failure of routine rapid HIV testing: a case study of improving low sensitivity in the field
© Wolpaw et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 13 November 2009
Accepted: 22 March 2010
Published: 22 March 2010
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|13 Nov 2009||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|18 Dec 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Ronald Gray|
|25 Dec 2009||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Elizabeth Dax|
|26 Jan 2010||Author responded||Author comments - Benjamin Wolpaw|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|26 Jan 2010||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|21 Feb 2010||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Elizabeth Dax|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|11 Mar 2010||Author responded||Author comments - Benjamin Wolpaw|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|11 Mar 2010||Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|Resubmission - Version 6|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 6|
|17 Mar 2010||Author responded||Author comments - Benjamin Wolpaw|
|Resubmission - Version 7|
|17 Mar 2010||Submitted||Manuscript version 7|
|22 Mar 2010||Editorially accepted|
|22 Mar 2010||Article published||10.1186/1472-6963-10-73|
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.