This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Teasing apart “the tangled web” of influence of policy dialogues: lessons from a case study of dialogues about healthcare reform options for Canada
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 1 September 2016
Accepted: 13 July 2017
Published: 28 July 2017
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting email@example.com.
|1 Sep 2016||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|7 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Melanie Barwick|
|23 Dec 2016||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Bev Holmes|
|17 Mar 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Gillian Mulvale|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|17 Mar 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|5 Apr 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Bev Holmes|
|16 Jun 2017||Author responded||Author comments - Gillian Mulvale|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|16 Jun 2017||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|26 Jun 2017||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Bev Holmes|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|13 Jul 2017||Editorially accepted|
|28 Jul 2017||Article published||10.1186/s13012-017-0627-3|
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
You can find further information about the peer review system here.