Abstract:Potential reviewers often do not take on a review because they don't know how or who to ask. Others go to training sessions about how to develop a protocol, search the literature and enter the findings in Revman. This generates enthusiasm, even the production of a protocol, but often a long delay in completing and submitting the review. In order to support reviewers and prevent them from stalling, far from the review base, the Neonatal Review Group (NRG) has established regional co-ordinators (RC). This paper describes the experience of our first RC in Australasia. Qualifications: Completed at least one review, enthusiastic about the Cochrane Collaboration (CC), a potential opinion leader. Roles. * Promote the CC at local and national meetings * Provide a role model for potential reviewers * Provide a link between potential reviewers and the distant editorial base How to nominate a title Access to the rules (NRG has clear instructions on the format and methods at http:// hiru.mcmaster.ca/cochrane/centres/canadian/neonatal) 'How to' advice and encouragement during the review process * Take on co-authors as training then support them doing the next review as a co-author * Advocate for clinical colleges accepting a systematic review as valid research for advanced training projects * Provide a venue where reviewers can come and work on their reviews, away from usual work * Support to survive the editors critical (usually correct) comments * Attempt to have at least one reviewer in each of the neonatal units in the region Results. Of the 87 completed reviews from the NRG in Issue 2, 2000 of the Cochrane Library, 34 (39%) are authored by Australasian reviewers. The Paediatric Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has accepted systematic reviews as valid research in advanced training in neonatology. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand call for papers on systematic reviews for their annual meetings. Twelve of the 29 neonatal intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand have at least one person who has done a review or is going through the review process. The down side is that this activity is unfunded and systematic reviews are not accepted as valid research in University funding. /h3>