This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
A prospective and randomized comparison of rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 14 January 2016
Accepted: 12 April 2017
Published: 21 April 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|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|
|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 and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.