This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
All that glisters is not gold: a comparison of electronic monitoring versus filled prescriptions – an observational study
© Wetzels et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006
Received: 21 July 2005
Accepted: 10 February 2006
Published: 10 February 2006
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|21 Jul 2005||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|18 Aug 2005||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Peter Andrew Meredith|
|20 Sep 2005||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Thomas Mengden|
|12 Oct 2005||Author responded||Author comments - Gwenn Wetzels|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|12 Oct 2005||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|26 Oct 2005||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Thomas Mengden|
|13 Dec 2005||Author responded||Author comments - Gwenn Wetzels|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|13 Dec 2005||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|10 Feb 2006||Editorially accepted|
|10 Feb 2006||Article published||10.1186/1472-6963-6-8|
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.