Should prophylactic thrombolysis be routine in clinical practice? Evidence from an autopsy case of septicemia
© Inai et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 5 July 2013
Accepted: 27 January 2014
Published: 30 January 2014
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|5 Jul 2013||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|10 Oct 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Rafael Zaragoza|
|11 Oct 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Maria Guembe|
|17 Oct 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Nidhi Singla|
|12 Dec 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Kunihiro Inai|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|12 Dec 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|18 Dec 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Kunihiro Inai|
|31 Dec 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Rafael Zaragoza|
|4 Jan 2014||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Maria Guembe|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|18 Dec 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|27 Jan 2014||Editorially accepted|
|30 Jan 2014||Article published||10.1186/1472-6890-14-6|
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.. 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.