Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Editors, including Cochrane Co-ordinating Editors (CoEds) are, like judges, in the dangerous position of not being subject to formal review. In March 2005, some UK CoEds agreed to try a voluntary quality control scheme.
Objectives: To introduce and evaluate a quality control (QUAC) system for CoEds of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs).
Methods: The UK CoEds were invited to join a QUAC circle in which CoEd A would review CoEd B, B would review C and so on until CoEd Z reviewed CoEd A. Before and during a meeting between each pair of CoEds, the visiting CoEd reviewed the module and one randomly selected Cochrane review from the portfolio of the CRG being visited. At the end of the meeting, both CoEds scored the usefulness of the meeting with regard to whether they thought it would lead to a change in their own CRG's practice. Separate scores from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) were given for the module, editorial and refereeing process and the individual review. The overall usefulness of the QUAC scheme was also scored.
Results: Twenty-six invitations were sent, 14 replies were received and 11 CoEds eventually participated. Six quality control visits have taken place by March 2006 and five more are scheduled between now and the Colloquium. Some CRGs decided to include others from the editorial team and not just the CoEd in the visit. Detailed results cannot be included here because this might introduce bias into the reports of the remaining visits. Prizes for the first completed report, the most useful report and the funniest report will be awarded at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: Quality control of one CoEd by another is possible. There may be benefits to including other members of the editorial team in this process.
Objectives: To introduce and evaluate a quality control (QUAC) system for CoEds of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs).
Methods: The UK CoEds were invited to join a QUAC circle in which CoEd A would review CoEd B, B would review C and so on until CoEd Z reviewed CoEd A. Before and during a meeting between each pair of CoEds, the visiting CoEd reviewed the module and one randomly selected Cochrane review from the portfolio of the CRG being visited. At the end of the meeting, both CoEds scored the usefulness of the meeting with regard to whether they thought it would lead to a change in their own CRG's practice. Separate scores from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) were given for the module, editorial and refereeing process and the individual review. The overall usefulness of the QUAC scheme was also scored.
Results: Twenty-six invitations were sent, 14 replies were received and 11 CoEds eventually participated. Six quality control visits have taken place by March 2006 and five more are scheduled between now and the Colloquium. Some CRGs decided to include others from the editorial team and not just the CoEd in the visit. Detailed results cannot be included here because this might introduce bias into the reports of the remaining visits. Prizes for the first completed report, the most useful report and the funniest report will be awarded at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: Quality control of one CoEd by another is possible. There may be benefits to including other members of the editorial team in this process.
PDF