Peer review reports
From: Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants
Original Submission | ||
---|---|---|
4 May 2023 | Submitted | Original manuscript |
Resubmission - Version 2 | ||
Submitted | Manuscript version 2 | |
8 Jun 2023 | Author responded | Author comments - Iris Burck |
Resubmission - Version 3 | ||
8 Jun 2023 | Submitted | Manuscript version 3 |
7 Jul 2023 | Author responded | Author comments - Iris Burck |
Resubmission - Version 4 | ||
7 Jul 2023 | Submitted | Manuscript version 4 |
31 Jan 2024 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - Ralf Schulze |
11 Feb 2024 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - Daniel Sieber |
13 Mar 2024 | Author responded | Author comments - Iris Burck |
Resubmission - Version 5 | ||
13 Mar 2024 | Submitted | Manuscript version 5 |
13 Mar 2024 | Author responded | Author comments - Iris Burck |
Resubmission - Version 6 | ||
13 Mar 2024 | Submitted | Manuscript version 6 |
21 Mar 2024 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - Ralf Schulze |
24 Mar 2024 | Reviewed | Reviewer Report - Daniel Sieber |
28 Apr 2024 | Author responded | Author comments - Iris Burck |
Resubmission - Version 7 | ||
28 Apr 2024 | Submitted | Manuscript version 7 |
13 May 2024 | Author responded | Author comments - Iris Burck |
Resubmission - Version 8 | ||
13 May 2024 | Submitted | Manuscript version 8 |
Publishing | ||
4 Jun 2024 | Editorially accepted | |
13 Jun 2024 | Article published | 10.1186/s12880-024-01322-4 |