Peer Review reports
From: Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol
| Original Submission | ||
|---|---|---|
| 25 Nov 2020 | Submitted | Original manuscript |
| 16 Dec 2020 | Author responded | Author comments - mahtab dadashaliha |
| Resubmission - Version 2 | ||
| 16 Dec 2020 | Submitted | Manuscript version 2 |
| 26 Dec 2020 | Author responded | Author comments - mahtab dadashaliha |
| Resubmission - Version 3 | ||
| 26 Dec 2020 | Submitted | Manuscript version 3 |
| 27 Feb 2021 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 3 Mar 2021 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - Alex Sandro Rolland Souza |
| 9 Mar 2021 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 2 May 2021 | Author responded | Author comments - mahtab dadashaliha |
| Resubmission - Version 4 | ||
| 2 May 2021 | Submitted | Manuscript version 4 |
| 24 May 2021 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - Alex Sandro Rolland Souza |
| 29 May 2021 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report |
| 22 Aug 2021 | Author responded | Author comments - Masoumeh dadashaliha |
| Resubmission - Version 5 | ||
| 22 Aug 2021 | Submitted | Manuscript version 5 |
| 30 Sep 2021 | Author responded | Author comments - Masoumeh dadashaliha |
| Resubmission - Version 6 | ||
| 30 Sep 2021 | Submitted | Manuscript version 6 |
| Publishing | ||
| 14 Oct 2021 | Editorially accepted | |
| 27 Oct 2021 | Article published | 10.1186/s12884-021-04196-4 |
You can find further information about peer review here.