Addressing the policy cacophony does not require more evidence: an argument for reframing obesity as caloric overconsumption
© Shelley; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 25 July 2012
Accepted: 23 November 2012
Published: 30 November 2012
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting email@example.com.
|25 Jul 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|27 Sep 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Yoni Freedhoff|
|27 Sep 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Dana Lee Olstad|
|8 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Gary Sacks|
|1 Nov 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Jacob Shelley|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|1 Nov 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|6 Nov 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Jacob Shelley|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|6 Nov 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|8 Nov 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Dana Lee Olstad|
|18 Nov 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Gary Sacks|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|23 Nov 2012||Editorially accepted|
|30 Nov 2012||Article published||10.1186/1471-2458-12-1042|
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.