This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Knee arthrodesis versus above-the-knee amputation after septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty: comparison of functional outcome and complication rates
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 26 March 2017
Accepted: 6 November 2017
Published: 13 November 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org.
|26 Mar 2017||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|16 Jun 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - ND Clement|
|15 Aug 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Pietro Ruggieri|
|13 Sep 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Sven Hungerer|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|13 Sep 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|20 Sep 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - ND Clement|
|27 Oct 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Sven Hungerer|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|27 Oct 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|6 Nov 2017||Editorially accepted|
|13 Nov 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12891-017-1806-8|
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 email@example.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.