This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Comparison of the long-term efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatment- naïve chronic hepatitis B patients
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 29 September 2016
Accepted: 1 March 2017
Published: 9 March 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|29 Sep 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|15 Oct 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Dechun Feng|
|11 Jan 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Giovanni Tarantino|
|8 Feb 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Ji Won Park|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|8 Feb 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|19 Feb 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Ji Won Park|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|19 Feb 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|1 Mar 2017||Editorially accepted|
|9 Mar 2017||Article published||10.1186/s12876-017-0596-7|
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.