Social acceptability and perceived impact of a community-led cash transfer programme in Zimbabwe
© Skovdal et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 12 July 2012
Accepted: 10 April 2013
Published: 15 April 2013
Open Peer Review reports
Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org.
|12 Jul 2012||Submitted||Original manuscript|
|Resubmission - Version 2|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 2|
|21 Sep 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Lynnette Neufeld|
|7 Oct 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Keetie Roelen|
|25 Nov 2012||Author responded||Author comments - Morten Skovdal|
|Resubmission - Version 3|
|25 Nov 2012||Submitted||Manuscript version 3|
|10 Dec 2012||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Keetie Roelen|
|23 Mar 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Morten Skovdal|
|Resubmission - Version 4|
|23 Mar 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 4|
|1 Apr 2013||Author responded||Author comments - Morten Skovdal|
|Resubmission - Version 5|
|1 Apr 2013||Submitted||Manuscript version 5|
|2 Apr 2013||Reviewed||Reviewer Report - Keetie Roelen|
|Resubmission - Version 6|
|Submitted||Manuscript version 6|
|10 Apr 2013||Editorially accepted|
|15 Apr 2013||Article published||10.1186/1471-2458-13-342|
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 email@example.com. 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.