Obligations as a Review Group and editorial pathway

1. The following slides were presented at a meeting of potential editors and methods advisors for the proposed Cochrane review group in February 2008. The slides were designed to promote discussion rather than represent the views and directions of this group.

2. Obligations as a Review Group and editorial pathway

3. Current context • 51 Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) • Review of the Collaboration, its structure and processes, currently underway (Jeremy Grimshaw) • Development of a central Editorial Board (all coordinating editors) • Major update of Revman (software for producing Cochrane reviews for uploading onto The Cochrane Library) – Revman 5 roll-out in March 2008

4. Related CRGs – potential for co-registration of titles Our scope covers upstream, population level interventions – addressing social and environmental determinants of health • EPOC – incl health systems • DPLP and DAN - mental health • Heart and Met & Endo – nutrition and physical activity initiatives • Tobacco Addiction • HIV/AIDS • Oral Health • Injuries • Campbell Review Groups – Education, Social Welfare, Crime and Justice.

5. Essential core functions of a CRG (The Cochrane Manual) • To focus on a particular health problem or healthcare area. • To prepare and maintain reviews of ways to prevent and treat the health problem, and ways to rehabilitate people who have the health problem. • To ensure reviews are comprehensible to the non-specialist and use outcomes that matter to people making choices in health care. • To maximise the quality of reviews. • To create, maintain, and submit a CRG module on a quarterly basis. • To develop and maintain a Specialized Register, containing all relevant studies in their area of interest, and submit this to CENTRAL on a quarterly basis • To contribute to maintaining the Cochrane Contact Database

6. Essential core functions of a CRG (The Cochrane Manual) cont… • To support the CRG’s members (e.g. authors, consumers, editors) • To avoid duplication of effort across the Collaboration, particularly between other CRGs • To enable wide participation in the work of the CRG by reducing barriers to contributing, encouraging diversity, and involving people with different skills and backgrounds • To ensure effective and efficient communication between CRG members • To communicate effectively with the reference Cochrane Centre, the Consumer Network, and relevant Fields and Methods Groups • To ensure sustainability and continuity of the CRG’s programme of work.

7. The editorial process • The editorial process should be seen as constructive criticism aimed at educating and raising standards • development of methodological standards by each CRG - though even within CRGs, individual reviews may have varying data types and quality requirements (standards to be described in each CRG’s module) • maintenance of links with relevant Methods Groups so as to be guided by the best available methods

8. Editorial process 1/ Title registration • Potential review author (RA) sends email to CRG of topic interest • Sent title rego form if looks within scope and not already done • RA sends back completed title rego form- reviewed by CRG and CoEd – may be returned for amendment to RA • Reviewed by editors (how many?) [EPOC assigns two editors at this stage to for comment], and possibly Field/Network rep if appropriate] • Final approval by Co-Ed/RGC -> assign contact editorTitle registered and advertised to wider Cochrane network (to check duplicates and interested persons). RA may be sent editorial comments for addressing in protocol.

9. Editorial process 2/ Protocol completion • RA submits protocol • Contact editor/RGC identify external peer reviewers (including consumer +/- policy maker?) • Editors (how many?) and TSC asked to comment on protocol [EPOC sends to one editor, statistical ed, economics ed, and 1 external PR] • Contact editor summarises editors and external PR comments • Protocol accepted as is or RA asked for revisions • Revised protocol goes back to same editors (not ext PRs) • Co-Ed receives notice of Contact Ed’s approval and signs off on protocol for publication • RA receives notice of approval (so too editors and external PRs)

10. Pathway of a Cochrane review 3/ Review completion • RA submits review to RGC • Same refereeing process as protocol (editors, TSC, external PRs – same if available, may need to add if some unwilling/unable)[EPOC add a ‘referee editor’ here as contact editor may be too close to the review to be entirely objective] • Revisions required or approved • Synopsis sent to Consumer Network for approval • CoEd signs off on review for publication • RA receives notice of approval (so too editors and external PRs) and reminded of update requirements (with approximate due date for update?)

11. Cochrane Editorial Resources • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: official document describing process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews • Editorial Resource Pack (to be modified from C&C Group’s resource) • Cochrane Style Guide: (for authors and editors) - currently being updated to coincide with the release of RevMan 5 in March 2008 • Cochrane Style Basics: a two-page summary of the Cochrane Style Guide designed specifically for review authors • Copy-Editing Checklist: Quality Advisory Group incorporating these into new technical-editing guidelines • Copy Edit Support: provided by Wiley to help editorial staff of CRGs Accept reviews, protocols, and updates in html format -> copy edited by a team of freelances and returned in Word format with tracked changes. • RevMan homepage – software download, FAQs, http://www.cc-ims.net/RevMan