Discrepancies between perceptions of students and deans regarding the consequences of restricting students’ use of electronic medical records on quality of medical education
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 13 September 2016
Accepted: 17 February 2017
Published: 13 March 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|13 Sep 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|2 Nov 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Sarah Shepherd|
|1 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Carolyn King|
|14 Jan 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Ivan Solarte|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|14 Jan 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|9 Feb 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Ivan Solarte|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|9 Feb 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|17 Feb 2017||Editorially accepted|
|13 Mar 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12909-017-0887-2|
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.