Peer Review reports
Original Submission | ||
---|---|---|
14 Oct 2011 | Submitted | Original manuscript |
17 Oct 2011 | Author responded | Author comments - Peter Sandercock |
Resubmission - Version 2 | ||
17 Oct 2011 | Submitted | Manuscript version 2 |
31 Oct 2011 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - David Kent |
4 Nov 2011 | Author responded | Author comments - Peter Sandercock |
Resubmission - Version 3 | ||
4 Nov 2011 | Submitted | Manuscript version 3 |
Resubmission - Version 4 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 4 | |
Resubmission - Version 5 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 5 | |
Resubmission - Version 6 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 6 | |
Resubmission - Version 7 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 7 | |
Resubmission - Version 8 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 8 | |
Resubmission - Version 9 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 9 | |
Resubmission - Version 10 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 10 | |
10 Nov 2011 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - David Kent |
12 Nov 2011 | Author responded | Author comments - Peter Sandercock |
Resubmission - Version 11 | ||
12 Nov 2011 | Submitted | Manuscript version 11 |
14 Nov 2011 | Author responded | Author comments - Peter Sandercock |
Resubmission - Version 12 | ||
14 Nov 2011 | Submitted | Manuscript version 12 |
Publishing | ||
30 Nov 2011 | Editorially accepted | |
30 Nov 2011 | Article published | 10.1186/1745-6215-12-252 |
You can find further information about peer review here.