Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow–Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in predicting the risk of in-hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Nanjing, China

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
18 Feb 2018 Submitted Original manuscript
4 Mar 2018 Author responded Author comments - Lei Gu
Resubmission - Version 2
4 Mar 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 2
18 Mar 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Ming-Lun Han
1 Apr 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Chieh-Chang Chen
24 Apr 2018 Author responded Author comments - Lei Gu
Resubmission - Version 3
24 Apr 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 3
20 May 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Ming-Lun Han
29 May 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Chieh-Chang Chen
2 Jun 2018 Author responded Author comments - Lei Gu
Resubmission - Version 4
2 Jun 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 4
9 Jun 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Chen Shuan Chung
11 Jun 2018 Author responded Author comments - Lei Gu
Resubmission - Version 5
11 Jun 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 5
19 Jun 2018 Author responded Author comments - Lei Gu
Resubmission - Version 6
19 Jun 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 6
Publishing
20 Jun 2018 Editorially accepted
28 Jun 2018 Article published 10.1186/s12876-018-0828-5

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 are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement