Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: An observational study in an urban Ugandan clinic comparing virological outcomes of patients switched from first-line antiretroviral regimens to second-line regimens containing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir

Back to article

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

Original Submission
27 Feb 2018 Submitted Original manuscript
3 Apr 2018 Author responded Author comments - Eva Agnes Laker Odongpiny
Resubmission - Version 2
3 Apr 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 2
20 May 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - NIPAM SHAH
19 Jun 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Rupak Shivakoti
5 Aug 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Salome Charalambous
19 Nov 2018 Author responded Author comments - Eva Agnes Laker Odongpiny
Resubmission - Version 3
19 Nov 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 3
29 Jan 2019 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Rupak Shivakoti
12 Mar 2019 Author responded Author comments - Eva Agnes Laker Odongpiny
Resubmission - Version 4
12 Mar 2019 Submitted Manuscript version 4
Publishing
15 Mar 2019 Editorially accepted
25 Mar 2019 Article published 10.1186/s12879-019-3907-5

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