Acceptability of evidence-based neonatal care practices in rural Uganda – implications for programming
© Waiswa et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
Received: 28 June 2007
Accepted: 21 June 2008
Published: 21 June 2008
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|28 Jun 2007||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|6 Aug 2007||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Edwin van Teijlingen|
|15 Nov 2007||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Marge Koblinsky|
|14 Jan 2008||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - ebenezer ojofeitimi|
|5 Feb 2008||Author responded||Author comments - Peter Waiswa|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|5 Feb 2008||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|24 Feb 2008||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Edwin van Teijlingen|
|24 Mar 2008||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Marge Koblinsky|
|7 May 2008||Author responded||Author comments - Peter Waiswa|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|7 May 2008||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|4 Jun 2008||Author responded||Author comments - Peter Waiswa|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|4 Jun 2008||Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|21 Jun 2008||Editorially accepted|
|21 Jun 2008||Article published||10.1186/1471-2393-8-21|
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.