Skip to main content

Peer Review reports

From: Comparative evaluation of posterior percutaneous endoscopy cervical discectomy using a 3.7 mm endoscope and a 6.9 mm endoscope for cervical disc herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Original Submission
6 Jan 2020 Submitted Original manuscript
30 Mar 2020 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Ulrich Hubbe
1 Jul 2020 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Research Square Reviewer 1
13 Jul 2020 Reviewed Reviewer Report
2 Sep 2020 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 2
2 Sep 2020 Submitted Manuscript version 2
12 Sep 2020 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Research Square Reviewer 1
19 Sep 2020 Reviewed Reviewer Report
11 Oct 2020 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 3
11 Oct 2020 Submitted Manuscript version 3
2 Nov 2020 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 4
2 Nov 2020 Submitted Manuscript version 4
22 Nov 2020 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 5
22 Nov 2020 Submitted Manuscript version 5
26 Dec 2020 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 6
26 Dec 2020 Submitted Manuscript version 6
29 Dec 2020 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 7
29 Dec 2020 Submitted Manuscript version 7
12 Jan 2021 Author responded Author comments - Tong Yu
Resubmission - Version 8
12 Jan 2021 Submitted Manuscript version 8
Publishing
14 Jan 2021 Editorially accepted
2 Feb 2021 Article published 10.1186/s12891-021-03980-9

You can find further information about peer review here.

Back to article page