Collaboration between Cochrane groups and specialty journals to improve the efficiency and quality of systematic review publication

Article type
Authors
Menard A1, Pilkington K2, Wieland LS3
1BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
2University of Portsmouth School of Health and Care Professions
3University of Maryland School of Medicine
Abstract
Background: Many Cochrane groups have relationships with specialty journals in their area of research and practice. Some of these Cochrane groups have established mechanisms to support the publication of high-quality systematic reviews in specialty journals related to their scope.

Objectives: To describe the evolving roles of a Cochrane group currently affiliated with a BMC specialty journal, and the results of this collaboration.

Methods: We will describe the procedures for drawing up an affiliation agreement between a Cochrane group and a journal and deciding upon the scope of Cochrane support to editorial staff and peer reviewers, using as exemplar the relationship between Cochrane Complementary Medicine and BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. We will describe the Cochrane group participation in establishing reporting requirements, screening submissions, carrying out peer review, and educating editorial and peer review staff on systematic review reporting and methodology, and how the contributions of the Cochrane group to editorial processes evolved over time.

Results: The publication of reporting requirements and screening of new submissions required limited Cochrane staff input but had a correspondingly limited effect on the editorial process. Carrying out full peer reviews for systematic reviews was highly effective in identifying problems with manuscripts but was limited by the volume of submissions and the capacity of the Cochrane group. Efforts to supplement both these approaches by educating editorial and peer review staff on systematic review methodology are ongoing. We will present documented outcomes of all approaches with regard to turnaround times, rejection rates, and quality of published systematic reviews.

Conclusions: The successes and limitations of different approaches to supporting the publication of high-quality non-Cochrane systematic reviews may serve as guidance for other Cochrane groups who wish to formalize relationships with specialty journals. The methods used to achieve these goals should be tailored to the needs of the journal and the capacity of the Cochrane group staff, and the effects of these collaborations should be monitored to establish their effectiveness and optimize their benefits to the editorial process.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None