Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
In 2017 the Cochrane Managing Editors’ Executive contacted all Managing Editors (MEs) and Assistant Managing Editors (AMEs) to arrange one-to-one interviews to give them an opportunity to discuss work-related issues. Of the 77 MEs/AMEs contacted, 64 (83%) participated in the interviews. Of the 13 (17%) MEs and AMEs who did not participate: 6 declined the invitation, 3 were on long-service leave and 4 had recently vacated their post.
With the upcoming new Editorial Management System (EMS) and the new organization of Networks, we felt it was timely to repeat to interviews in 2020.
Objective:
To conduct one-to-one interviews with all Cochrane MEs/AMEs in post in order to proactively identify MEs/AMEs who struggle to keep up to date with changes, objectives, policies, and best practice recommendations, and to understand how the new structures in the organization (Networks, Editorial and Methods Department (EMD) and People Services Department) can more effectively address our concerns to alleviate the pressure in our roles.
Methods: We consulted with Network Senior Editors, the EMD, the People Services Department, and the Informatics and Technology Services to suggest potential questions for this second survey. The MEs’ Executive decided on the final list of questions.
Using Archie, we identified 85 individuals with the role ME or AME. The invitation was extended to editorial assistants if the ME thought appropriate. We assigned one ME Executive member to interview the MEs/AMEs in each Network. After a general explanatory email, we sent a personalized invitation to each ME and AME to agree on a date, with reminders if necessary, to book a time. After the first round of interviews in 2017, 20 MEs/AMEs had left their posts. We interviewed 28 people for the first time.
Results:
The results of the 2017 interviews are available on the MEs’ Portal (https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/resources/resources-groups/managing-editors-portal/managing-editors-executive/mesames-capacity-building-survey). The second round of interviews are in progress, and we plan to complete this by April 2020.
Conclusion:
Cochrane is at a critical stage regarding the development of a new EMS. It is essential that we have an accurate picture of how MEs/AMEs are currently managing workload and the ways in which the newly formed Networks are addressing their needs. To ensure a smooth collaborative development and maximize performance of the new EMS system, it is vital that the ME community is consulted and engaged at all stages of the development.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Patients are an integral part of the editorial process in Cochrane, but they were not directly involved in this project.
In 2017 the Cochrane Managing Editors’ Executive contacted all Managing Editors (MEs) and Assistant Managing Editors (AMEs) to arrange one-to-one interviews to give them an opportunity to discuss work-related issues. Of the 77 MEs/AMEs contacted, 64 (83%) participated in the interviews. Of the 13 (17%) MEs and AMEs who did not participate: 6 declined the invitation, 3 were on long-service leave and 4 had recently vacated their post.
With the upcoming new Editorial Management System (EMS) and the new organization of Networks, we felt it was timely to repeat to interviews in 2020.
Objective:
To conduct one-to-one interviews with all Cochrane MEs/AMEs in post in order to proactively identify MEs/AMEs who struggle to keep up to date with changes, objectives, policies, and best practice recommendations, and to understand how the new structures in the organization (Networks, Editorial and Methods Department (EMD) and People Services Department) can more effectively address our concerns to alleviate the pressure in our roles.
Methods: We consulted with Network Senior Editors, the EMD, the People Services Department, and the Informatics and Technology Services to suggest potential questions for this second survey. The MEs’ Executive decided on the final list of questions.
Using Archie, we identified 85 individuals with the role ME or AME. The invitation was extended to editorial assistants if the ME thought appropriate. We assigned one ME Executive member to interview the MEs/AMEs in each Network. After a general explanatory email, we sent a personalized invitation to each ME and AME to agree on a date, with reminders if necessary, to book a time. After the first round of interviews in 2017, 20 MEs/AMEs had left their posts. We interviewed 28 people for the first time.
Results:
The results of the 2017 interviews are available on the MEs’ Portal (https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/resources/resources-groups/managing-editors-portal/managing-editors-executive/mesames-capacity-building-survey). The second round of interviews are in progress, and we plan to complete this by April 2020.
Conclusion:
Cochrane is at a critical stage regarding the development of a new EMS. It is essential that we have an accurate picture of how MEs/AMEs are currently managing workload and the ways in which the newly formed Networks are addressing their needs. To ensure a smooth collaborative development and maximize performance of the new EMS system, it is vital that the ME community is consulted and engaged at all stages of the development.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Patients are an integral part of the editorial process in Cochrane, but they were not directly involved in this project.