Peer Review reports
From: Uretero-neocystostomy: a retrospective comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic techniques
| Original Submission | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 Jul 2022 | Submitted | Original manuscript |
| Resubmission - Version 2 | ||
| Submitted | Manuscript version 2 | |
| Resubmission - Version 3 | ||
| Submitted | Manuscript version 3 | |
| 29 Jul 2022 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 17 Dec 2022 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 27 Dec 2022 | Author responded | Author comments - Christian Ramesmayer |
| Resubmission - Version 4 | ||
| 27 Dec 2022 | Submitted | Manuscript version 4 |
| 14 Jan 2023 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 23 Jan 2023 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 29 Jan 2023 | Author responded | Author comments - Christian Ramesmayer |
| Resubmission - Version 5 | ||
| 29 Jan 2023 | Submitted | Manuscript version 5 |
| 4 Feb 2023 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| Resubmission - Version 6 | ||
| Submitted | Manuscript version 6 | |
| Publishing | ||
| 25 Feb 2023 | Editorially accepted | |
| 7 Mar 2023 | Article published | 10.1186/s12894-023-01200-1 |
You can find further information about peer review here.