Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: A prospective and randomized comparison of rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
14 Jan 2016 Submitted Original manuscript
3 Feb 2016 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Francesca Pisano
5 Feb 2016 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Antonino Saccá
8 Feb 2016 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Antonio Pastore
9 Mar 2016 Author responded Author comments - Dehui Lai
Resubmission - Version 2
9 Mar 2016 Submitted Manuscript version 2
19 Oct 2016 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Francesca Pisano
3 Jan 2017 Author responded Author comments - Dehui Lai
Resubmission - Version 3
3 Jan 2017 Submitted Manuscript version 3
Resubmission - Version 4
Submitted Manuscript version 4
29 Mar 2017 Author responded Author comments - Dehui Lai
Resubmission - Version 5
29 Mar 2017 Submitted Manuscript version 5
Publishing
12 Apr 2017 Editorially accepted
21 Apr 2017 Article published 10.1186/s12894-017-0220-8

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 are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement