Background: The time from protocol to review was around two years (median) in 2014. Cochrane Review authors have access to online resources, workshops and courses in addition to the Cochrane Handbook and the group’s specific resources and a Cochrane Author Support Tool to be published. This should enable the review authors to waltz through the review process (Waltz definition 1: to succeed easily or breeze through). Why is it that some authors feel they are stuck in a true Viennese waltz (Waltz definition 2: a complex dance that consists only of multiple turns and changes in step)?
Objectives: How to keep review authors in the loop?
Methods: Case study including three professional systematic review authors experienced in writing Cochrane Reviews. Data collected from Archie, emails and personal memory analysed narratively.
Results: Review authors are a vital part in the production of Cochrane Reviews and we should all take care that they feel valued.
Review authors are asked to submit revised versions within three months and this should apply to editorial processes as well.
We should consider specific editorial support for non-native English speakers to facilitate clear writing.
Review authors should be made aware of likely timelines in both absolute months and elapsed time from title to protocol and protocol to review to set clear expectations.
Conclusions: Review authors, like users, consumers or customers might have valuable insight into pitfalls and enhancers for how to keep reviewers and how to get people on board.
Review authors should always be informed about the viability of producing a Cochrane Review in relation to existing workload so they can make informed decisions.