Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane authors are expected to become familiar with the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook; a complex software package: Review Manager (RevMan) 4.2 and a highly structured prescriptive way of writing a systematic review. The Cochrane editorial process is collaborative, involving a high level of input from editors, peer reviewers and consumers.
Cochrane reviews are a significant commitment for authors. Authors must not duplicate work already published or registered in The Cochrane Library. They must first register a title; publish a protocol and then publish a systematic review. The completed review must then be updated every two years.
We noticed that even with the multitude of instructional materials available for Cochrane authors: CARGs Tips for authors; The Cochrane Reviewers Handbook; the Collaboration Open Learning Material and Cochrane workshops; authors still made the same basic errors. These errors lead to a great deal of work on the part of the editorial team; frustration and disillusionment for the authors and can potentially lead to serious publication errors.
Objectives: Our aim is to find out what the barriers are to reading written instructions; to find strategies to overcome those barriers; implement those strategies and evaluate their success.
Methods: We will conduct semi-structured email interviews with stakeholders (editors, authors etc). We will search electronic databases: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PSYCHINFO; ERIC and handsearch references for their eligibility.
Results: We will implement the results of our searches by rewriting and simplifying CARG's 'Tips for authors'. We will evaluate the improvement of reviews by sending out a questionnaire to authors and monitoring the number of drafts of a review required before entering the editorial process. We will go into more detail about the exact results in our poster presentation.
Conclusion: Our initial research shows that the principal barrier to reading instructions is the readability and complexity of their language. Well-written instructions with appropriate illustrations are an effective way of delivering a message. We have rewritten 'Tips for authors' and will monitor whether authors read and understand the new document.
Cochrane reviews are a significant commitment for authors. Authors must not duplicate work already published or registered in The Cochrane Library. They must first register a title; publish a protocol and then publish a systematic review. The completed review must then be updated every two years.
We noticed that even with the multitude of instructional materials available for Cochrane authors: CARGs Tips for authors; The Cochrane Reviewers Handbook; the Collaboration Open Learning Material and Cochrane workshops; authors still made the same basic errors. These errors lead to a great deal of work on the part of the editorial team; frustration and disillusionment for the authors and can potentially lead to serious publication errors.
Objectives: Our aim is to find out what the barriers are to reading written instructions; to find strategies to overcome those barriers; implement those strategies and evaluate their success.
Methods: We will conduct semi-structured email interviews with stakeholders (editors, authors etc). We will search electronic databases: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PSYCHINFO; ERIC and handsearch references for their eligibility.
Results: We will implement the results of our searches by rewriting and simplifying CARG's 'Tips for authors'. We will evaluate the improvement of reviews by sending out a questionnaire to authors and monitoring the number of drafts of a review required before entering the editorial process. We will go into more detail about the exact results in our poster presentation.
Conclusion: Our initial research shows that the principal barrier to reading instructions is the readability and complexity of their language. Well-written instructions with appropriate illustrations are an effective way of delivering a message. We have rewritten 'Tips for authors' and will monitor whether authors read and understand the new document.