Objective: To identify why authors choose to publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration, to gauge whether authors might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format, and to determine the resources necessary to achieve this aim.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE).

Results: We identified 88 systematic reviews from DARE with an Australian as the primary author, surveying the 73 authors for whom contact information was available. The response rate was 63% (46/73). The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). However, nearly half of respondents (34/73) would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating, and financial support. Almost all respondents (86%) would be willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author.

Conclusions: Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration.