This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Second opinion for degenerative spinal conditions: an option or a necessity? A prospective observational study
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 6 May 2016
Accepted: 8 August 2017
Published: 17 August 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|6 May 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|28 Jul 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Paul Willems|
|21 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Emily Lindley|
|1 Jan 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Michael J. Lee|
|27 Jan 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Mario Lenza|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|27 Jan 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|11 Apr 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Emily Lindley|
|3 Jul 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Sabrina Donzelli|
|23 Jul 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Mario Lenza|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|23 Jul 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|3 Aug 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Sabrina Donzelli|
|6 Aug 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Mario Lenza|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|6 Aug 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|8 Aug 2017||Editorially accepted|
|17 Aug 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12891-017-1712-0|
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.