Copy

Issue 6, August 2017

Contents

  1. Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource (EPPR) update
    - policy on the rejection of Cochrane reviews
    - Cochrane appeals policy
  2. New stands workflow emails
  3. Tips and Tricks
    - Editing the footnotes in a Figure created from an analysis in RevMan
  4. Reminder - Copy Edit Support holiday arrangements
  5. Reminder - Global Evidence Summit
  6. Welcome and farewell
1. Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource (EPPR) update
Rejection of Cochrane reviews and appeals
We are pleased to announce the publication of two new editorial policies in the Cochrane Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource (https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource).

Firstly, a Cochrane-wide policy on the rejection of Cochrane Reviews
(https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/rejection-cochrane-reviews).  This policy was developed in collaboration with three Co-Eds (Paul Garner, Sophie Hill and Simon Lewin) and was discussed during the Co-Eds mid-year meeting in Geneva.  The aim was to empower CRGs to make the decision to reject Reviews when necessary, thereby making the best use of valuable resources.  The policy is not prescriptive, but does provide examples of good reasons for rejecting Cochrane Reviews.

Co-Eds and MEs should familiarise themselves with this new policy, and also with the accompanying guidance document (https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/rejection-cochrane-reviews/rejection-cochrane-reviews-guidance-crgs), which describes that processes that should be followed when rejecting a Cochrane Review, including the steps that need to be taken in Archie, and whom to notify.

Secondly, a Cochrane appeals policy
(https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/overview-cochrane-library-and-related-content/cochrane-database-systematic-reviews-appeals-policy), which describes in detail the steps that must be followed if an author disagrees with an editorial decision concerning a specific Cochrane Review. It has become challenging for CRGs and the CEU to deal with appeals arising from editorial decisions because appeals are sent to different people, in different formats, and often lack the information required to consider the appeal.  The appeals policy complements the complaints procedure (https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/overview-cochrane-library-and-related-content/cochrane-library-complaints-procedure), which has been in place for some time, and has been amended slightly to include a clear differentiation from the appeals policy.


Both policies are ready for implementation.  We are including template rejection emails in Archie workflows to support the rejection policy, and are planning webinars to discuss the policies and implementation in more detail in September. We will also be organising external communication of these policies to authors.
Please send any questions to Bryony Urquhart (burquhart@cochrane.org).

A helpful reminder to MEs of the distinction between rejecting or withdrawing:
  • The rejection policy applies to documents PRE publication
  • The withdrawn policy applies to documents POST publication
2. New standard workflow emails

i. Standard workflow task emails

 The following task email template for a Protocol Workflow has been uploaded to Archie:
  • NEW: X1 Notify Contact Person about publication
A reminder that email templates can be found in Archie by right-clicking your CRG name and selecting Edit Task Email Templates. As the above template is a system wide one, you will need to make a copy of it before you can edit and use it.
Further information about task emails and how to edit them can be found in Archie Help.

ii. Standard workflow information emails

To support the rejection policy we have uploaded the following information Workflow email templates to Archie:
  1. Rejecting a review proposal – Reason 1: not a priority topic
  2. Rejecting a review proposal – Reason 2: author needs to first complete existing review
  3. Rejecting a review proposal – Reason 3: overlapping proposal
  4. Rejecting a review proposal – Reason 4: inexperienced author team
  5. Rejecting a review proposal – Reason 5: poor command of English
  6. Rejecting a draft protocol – Reason 1: quality/competence
  7. Rejecting a draft protocol – Reason 2: timeliness
  8. Rejecting a draft protocol – Reason 3: ethics
  9. Rejecting a draft review– Reason 1: quality/competence
  10. Rejecting a draft review – Reason 2: timeliness
  11. Rejecting a draft review – Reason 3: ethics
  12. Rejecting a draft update of a review– Reason 1: quality/competence
  13. Rejecting a draft update of a review – Reason 2: timeliness
  14. Rejecting a draft update of a review – Reason 3: ethics
Please note that at present there are no specific Rejection Policy tasks, so these emails should be used in conjunction with the ‘Other’ task.
3. Tips and Tricks
To edit the footnotes in a Figure created from an analysis you first need to find the relevant analysis in the ‘Data and analyses’ section of the review. Footnotes are usually inserted against a study.

Go to ‘Data and analyses’ section, expand the outcome in question to the intervention level which the Figure has been drawn from. The included study X will be evident.

Double click on Study X, which opens up the data table in the right hand window. You should also see the forest plot. The Footnote is situated at the bottom of the data table. 
4. Reminder Copy-edit Support holiday arrangements
Elizabeth Royle, CES Manager, is on leave from Monday 21 August to Monday 4 September 2017 inclusive. 
Kate Cahill (kate.cahill@phc.ox.ac.uk) will be running CES during this period. Please contact her if you have any questions about your submissions/assignments. Send all new submissions to Kate, and please remember to copy in Elizabeth.
Please remember to:
  • Include the title of the submission in the Subject line of the email
  • State the stage of the submission clearly (protocol, review, update, whether DTA, IPD etc.)
  • State the number of included studies (reviews and updates), and any other points that should be taken into consideration (e.g. very long (provide word count), numerous additional tables etc.)
  • Make any urgency – and the reason for it – very clear (CAPITALS and colours are helpful and perfectly acceptable).
5. Reminder Global Evidence Summit
The Global Evidence Summit's full schedule and sign-up launched Friday 18 August. 
 http://community.cochrane.org/news/global-evidence-summits-full-schedule-and-sign-launches-friday-18-august
6. Welcome and farewell
Welcome to Aynur Temur who has started as the new AME with the Haematological Malignancies Group.
 
And Farewell to Anne-Marie Stephani, ME of the Infectious Diseases Group for the past eight years, who is leaving Cochrane at the end of August. Anne-Marie has been a substantial contributor to Cochrane, IDG and the ME community and we wish her well.
Contact us...
If you have any questions about any of the above items, or about any aspect of your ME role, regardless of your location, please contact us at mesupport@cochrane.org

The Cochrane Managing Editor Support Team:
Anupa Shah | Liz Dooley | Sally Bell-Syer | Harriet MacLehose
Managing Editor Support Website
Managing Editor Support Website






This email was sent to <<Email Address>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
cochrane · bond university · robina · Gold Coast, Qld 4217 · Australia

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp