Ressources pour les auteurs de revues

 

Ressources à la disposition des auteurs de revues (en anglais)

• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions - le guide officiel de la Collaboration Cochrane pour la production de revues systématiques
• RevMan homepage- documentation et assistance pour le logiciel RevMan, l’outil utilisé pour préparer et mettre à jour les revues Cochrane
• Cochrane Style Resource – guide officiel pour écrire votre revue d’après les indications de style de la Collaboration Cochrane
• Utilisation de Individual Patient Data – Diapositives PowerPoint
• Re-publication de revues – explications sur les procédures à suivre et formulaires de demande (explanation of procedures and permission form) si vous souhaitez publier votre revue ailleurs que dans la Cochrane Library
• QUOROM statement checklistQUOROM (PDF-document) Une liste d'éléments que les auteurs de revues systématiques peuvent traiter afin d'assurer la fiabilité des résultats de la revue pour leurs lecteurs

Formation – sur place

Prenez contact avec l’ un des Centres Cochrane ou Groupes de Revues pour obtenir de l’information sur les ateliers et les cours donnés dans votre région sur la production de revues systématiques. Certaines de ces activités sont annoncées à la page ateliers du site web de la Collaboration Cochrane (en anglais).

Formation – en ligne (en anglais)

Outils d’apprentissage – apprenez à connaître les différentes étapes d’une revue systématique Cochrane et à vous former grâce à des modules en ligne, qui complètent le Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook (manuel à l’intention des auteurs de revues Cochrane). Ces modules vous permettront d’acquérir les compétences nécessaires pour mener à terme votre revue.

Ressources de formation offertes par d’autres organisations (en anglais)

Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness – un guide très complet du NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination

 

 

Editorial process

Titles

Our preferred format for Titles is 'Intervention' for 'condition', e.g. Oral zinc for arterial and venous ulcers.

Authors register a title with the group after discussion with the Managing Editor. If more than one person is interested in undertaking a review then the Managing Editor and Co-ordinating Editor will attempt to establish a collaboration between the parties, and will arbitrate in the case of disagreements.

Other review groups are informed that work is about to commence on a review by registering the proposed review title on ARCHIE. Any potential overlap is identified and the eventual supporting review group is determined by discussion. Where two or more individuals wish to do the same review, they are strongly encouraged to work together in a collaborative way. However, members of the editorial board are aware that, for various reasons, this may not be possible, and so responsibility for the review may be negotiated between the interested parties, or awarded by the editorial board on a 'first come, first served' basis.

Authors are strongly encouraged to attend a Protocol workshop organised by their supporting Cochrane Centre.

Protocols must be delivered within 12 months of a title being registered. Titles which have been registered for more than 12 months, for which protocols have not been forthcoming, may be de-registered becoming available  for review by other authors.

Protocols

All protocols are reviewed initially by the Managing Editor. Each protocol is sent for peer review with the request that comments are returned to the editorial base within 4 weeks. The comments are then reviewed by the Co-ordinating Editor before being forwarded to the contact author for consideration. For each protocol the peer referee panel usually consists of the Co-ordinating Editor, 2 Wounds Group Editors, the Statistical Editor, a member of the Consumer Network and 2 external peer referees, one with clinical and one with methodological expertise. Where possible the protocol is sent to the Cochrane Copy Editors for feedback.

Guidance is given to authors by the Co-ordinating Editor and Managing Editor on integration of comments into their protocol. Authors are expected to give a point by point response to the referee comments when re submitting their protocol to the editorial base.

If Editors require minor changes only, the revised protocol will be examined and approved by the Co-ordinating Editor prior to publication. However, if major changes are required, the revised version will be sent out to Editors for comments as before.

Authors are aware of the identity of the Editors and peer referees who comment on their protocol. The names of all those who provide feedback on the protocol are acknowledged in the published document.

Final copy editing of protocols is undertaken by the Coordinating Editor and the Managing Editor prior to submission to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The contact author is sent a proof copy to approve the final version prior to publication on the Cochrane Library.

Authors can visit the editorial base to work on their protocol with help from the Managing Editor and to develop their search strategies with the Trials Search Coordinator.

Review clinics are held at the editorial base for reviewers at pre and post-protocol stages depending on demand.

Reviews

All draft reviews are reviewed initially by the Managing Editor. Each review is sent for peer review with the request that comments are returned to the editorial base within 4 weeks. The comments are then reviewed by the Co-ordinating Editor before being forwarded to the contact author for consideration. For each review the peer referee panel usually consists of the Co-ordinating Editor, 2 Wounds Group Editors, the Statistical Editor, a member of the Consumer Network and 2 external peer referees, one with clinical and one with methodological expertise. Where possible the review is sent to the Cochrane Copy Editors for feedback.

Guidance on integration of referees' comments is given to reviewers by the Co-ordinating Editor and Managing Editor. Where necessary, the Co-ordinating Editor will discuss difficult methodological aspects of a review with other Editors, the Statistical Editor, and others where necessary to ensure editorial agreement and to avoid sending conflicting comments to the contact author.

If editors require minor changes only, the revised review will be examined and approved by the Co-ordinating Editor prior to publication. However, if major changes are required, the revised version will be sent out to Editors who refereed the review for comments as before.

Authors are aware of the identity of the Editors and peer referees who comment on their review. The names of all those who provide feedback on the review are acknowledged in the published document.

Final copy editing of reviews is undertaken by the Coordinating Editor and the Managing Editor prior to submission to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Authors are sent a proof copy to approve the final version prior to publication on the Cochrane Library.

Authors can visit the editorial base to work on their review with help from the Managing Editor.

Reviews should be submitted within twelve months of the protocol being accepted for publication in the Cochrane Library.

Updating

The Trials Search Coordinator searches the Specialised Register regularly for newly identified trials that might be relevant for inclusion in published reviews. Authors are sent the results of the updated searches every 18 months and are asked to examine reviews and update them within two years of the last publication date. If no new trials have been identified, and no changes are desired by the editorial base or the author, then the review will be annotated to indicate that no changes are required but that searches for new trials have been undertaken.

If changes are required, authors are expected to update the review. If authors fail to update reviews within 9 months of being advised that this is necessary, the review may be withdrawn from publication.

Reviews that include preliminary data from on-going trials are required to take subsequent data into account within 9 months of the publication of that data.

Authors are free to update reviews more often than once every two years if they wish.

It is likely that, in future, reviews will need to be updated in the light of comments received through the 'Feedback' facility on the Cochrane Library. It is expected that authors will be obliged to provide a response to feedback, and, if significant changes were made to the review as a result, the revised review would be subjected to the same editorial requirements as an updated review.

FEEDBACK
Feedback on published protocols and reviews will be sent in the first instance to Sally Bell-Syer, Feedback Editor. This will be sent to the authors for consideration. All feedback received will be appended to reviews or protocols in the Cochrane Library.