Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction: Pre-publication refereeing by peers is one method of assuring the quality of Cochrane Reviews.
Objective: To determine the processes and tools CRGs use for the pre-publication peer refereeing of protocols and reviews and to facilitate the sharing of this information amongst the CRGs.
Methods: We sent a 26-question survey in e-mail to all CRG administrators or co-ordinating editors. The questions focused on the refereeing methods CRGs apply to different forms of developing reviews and how they are formalized and implemented.
Results: Seventeen of 19 CRGs responded. The majority of CRGs have peer refereeing policies for protocols (13/17) and for reviews (14/17), although only 7 of 17 CRGs have a written policy, circulated in a paper manual or guide (5/7), in a newsletter (6/7), or by other means (3/7). Responsibility for implementing the peer review policy lies solely with the administrator in 5/17, solely with the editor in 4/17, and is shared in 5/17. The majority of CRGs use referees internal to the CRG (14/17), external to the CRG (12/17), and external to the Cochrane Collaboration (12/17). Six maintain a database or index file of referees. Of the CRGs that have sent materials to referees, the methods used are hardcopy by post (1/14), e-mail attachment (9/14), disk in post (7/14), fax (7/14), and file transfer protocol (6/14). Few CRGs have policies for resolving disputes between referees and authors of a review (3/17), have mechanisms for dealing with post-publication criticism after it has been published (2/17), or are conducting research related to peer review (1/17). Ten of 17 CRGs requested assistance from the San Francisco Center in providing them with information and standards on refereeing processes, and in evaluating their effectiveness.
Discussion: Our survey shows variation between CRGs in policies of pre-publication review by referees and in methods of implementing such review.
Objective: To determine the processes and tools CRGs use for the pre-publication peer refereeing of protocols and reviews and to facilitate the sharing of this information amongst the CRGs.
Methods: We sent a 26-question survey in e-mail to all CRG administrators or co-ordinating editors. The questions focused on the refereeing methods CRGs apply to different forms of developing reviews and how they are formalized and implemented.
Results: Seventeen of 19 CRGs responded. The majority of CRGs have peer refereeing policies for protocols (13/17) and for reviews (14/17), although only 7 of 17 CRGs have a written policy, circulated in a paper manual or guide (5/7), in a newsletter (6/7), or by other means (3/7). Responsibility for implementing the peer review policy lies solely with the administrator in 5/17, solely with the editor in 4/17, and is shared in 5/17. The majority of CRGs use referees internal to the CRG (14/17), external to the CRG (12/17), and external to the Cochrane Collaboration (12/17). Six maintain a database or index file of referees. Of the CRGs that have sent materials to referees, the methods used are hardcopy by post (1/14), e-mail attachment (9/14), disk in post (7/14), fax (7/14), and file transfer protocol (6/14). Few CRGs have policies for resolving disputes between referees and authors of a review (3/17), have mechanisms for dealing with post-publication criticism after it has been published (2/17), or are conducting research related to peer review (1/17). Ten of 17 CRGs requested assistance from the San Francisco Center in providing them with information and standards on refereeing processes, and in evaluating their effectiveness.
Discussion: Our survey shows variation between CRGs in policies of pre-publication review by referees and in methods of implementing such review.