|
Welcome to the May ME Support Digest! In this edition, we bring you details on the new Licence for Publication form system, changes that have been made in Editorial Manager to facilitate peer review of reviews using Risk of Bias 2, as well as the new process for referrals to the Research Integrity Editors. We hope you find it useful.
|
|
|
|
|
Contents - New Licence for Publication form system now linked to EM
- Authors no longer have access to Archie
- Reminder about withdrawing protocols
- Supporting peer review of reviews that use Risk of Bias (RoB) 2
- New process for referrals to the Research Integrity Editors and Conflict of Interest (CoI) Panel
- Protocol template for intervention reviews now available in RevMan Web
- Editorial Manager feedback
- Methods Support Unit web clinic on risk of bias tools for non-randomised studies of interventions
- Help inform developments to the Cochrane Review format: We need you!
- Upcoming events
|
|
|
|
|
1. New Licence for Publication form system now linked to EM
|
|
From 6 May, all Licence for Publication (LfP) forms for submissions in production are generated in the new LfP form system linked to Editorial Manager. Find out more in the EM Knowledge Base. Watch a demo of the new system. If you have any authors with outstanding LfP forms managed in Archie, or if you have any queries about the new system, please contact Cochrane Support. The task assignment email for the RevMan: Author Proofs task in Editorial Manager has also been edited to include the following line. Please edit this as needed to ask the Corresponding Author to encourage co-authors to complete LfP forms. [DELETE AS APPROPRIATE: Please note that the following members of the author team have not yet submitted their Licence for Publication forms: [Author 1], [Author 2] etc. The submission cannot be published until all authors have submitted their forms. We would be grateful if you could contact these authors to follow up.]
|
|
|
|
|
2. Authors no longer have access to Archie
|
|
|
|
|
3. Reminder about withdrawing protocols
|
|
Just a reminder that as of 1 March 2022, neither reviews nor protocols should be withdrawn for reasons other than serious error. If editorial teams wish to indicate that a protocol will not be progressed, they should instead use the Editorial Note feature to add a statement to the review clarifying its status. For information on how to add an Editorial Note see Editorial note: editorial guidance, where you can also find standard templates for notes to describe common reasons for protocols not progressing.
|
|
|
|
|
4. Supporting peer review of reviews that use Risk of Bias (RoB) 2
|
|
This item describes how changes in Editorial Manager have been made to facilitate peer review of reviews using risk of bias 2. Further information can also be found on the Editorial Manager Knowledge Base page Reviews using Risk of Bias 2.Detailed risk of bias assessments in supplementary files. The Risk of Bias 2 Cochrane Review Starter Pack has recently been updated to clarify that if the detailed risk of bias assessments using the risk of bias 2 tool are not in an open repository, they must be made available to editors and peer reviewers on submission: State how to access detailed risk of bias assessments data (with consensus responses to the signalling questions). Ideally these data should be publicly and openly available in a repository, and should be cited and linked to in the main text of the Cochrane review as supplemental data or files (they should not be included within the Review itself). Guidance on how to deposit and link to supplemental data in repositories is available in ‘Supplemental data and files’. If authors choose not to make their detailed risk of bias assessments publicly and openly available in a repository, they should be willing and able to share data with readers following reasonable requests, and the Cochrane review should state "Detailed risk of bias assessments are available on reasonable request". The detailed assessments must, however, be made available to editors and peer-reviewers on submission of their article to Editorial Manager. If the detailed assessments aren’t in open repository at the time of submission, they must be submitted to Editorial Manager as a Dataset. Further information on submitting Datasets to Editorial Manager as additional files is available in Submit the first draft of your protocol, review or update to Editorial Manager. The following new point has been added to the ME Submission Check to ensure that access to detailed risk of bias assessments data is checked on submission: “If the article is a full review and uses risk of bias 2, the review either includes a link to an open repository containing the detailed risk of bias assessments, or the authors have submitted the detailed risk of bias assessments as a supplementary file that can be accessed from the submission PDF (see Check links to supplementary files work correctly).”Risk of bias 2 tables in RevMan Web. The risk of bias 2 tables in RevMan Web are large, and some tables are not fully legible in the Editorial Manager submission PDF (columns are omitted). In order that the risk of bias 2 tables are legible for peer review in the submission PDF, Managing Editors should follow the instructions to Add Risk of Bias 2 tables and rebuild PDF. The ME Submission Check has also been updated as follows to facilitate this check (new text in italics). “All tables in the PDF are legible (no text has been omitted). If the review includes risk of bias 2 tables that are not legible, the instructions to Add Risk of Bias 2 tables and rebuild PDF have been followed.”
|
|
|
|
|
5. New process for referrals to the Research Integrity Editors and Conflict of Interest (CoI) Panel
|
|
The process for sending CoI referrals to the Research Integrity Editors and CoI Panel has changed. All queries relating to author CoI for a specific Cochrane protocol, review or update should now be sent via Editorial Manager, using the Ad Hoc email ‘ME CoI referral request’. This template email will pre-populate much of the information about the protocol/review/update that is required by the Research Integrity Editors and CoI Panel to advise on the referral and will include a link to the DoI forms on Convey, which should speed up the process of submitting a CoI referral. For more information on how to submit a CoI referral via Editorial Manager, please see the page ‘Referrals to the Research Integrity Editors and the Conflict of Interest (CoI) Panel’ on the CoI Portal. All other CoI queries (those that do not relate to author CoI for a specific Cochrane protocol, review or update e.g. queries about funding for a Cochrane review, funding for Cochrane groups, editor CoI, peer reviewer CoI or general queries about the policy) should be sent by email to coiarbiter@cochrane.org.
|
|
6. Protocol template for intervention reviews now available in RevMan Web
|
|
7. Editorial Manager feedback
|
|
We all know working in Editorial Manager can be challenging sometimes! Cochrane Support are always on the lookout for suggestions to improve template emails, tasks, flags and other elements of the system to improve user experience. Please use our Feedback form to provide comments and suggestions.
|
|
8. Methods Support Unit web clinic on risk of bias tools for non-randomised studies of interventions
|
|
Join us on 9 June 2022 at our next Methods Support Unit web clinic where we’ll be joined by Michelle Hilton-Boon, to hear about preferred and accepted risk of bias tools for assessing bias in non-randomised studies of interventions REGISTER HERE Dr Michele Hilton Boon is the Ailsa McKay Research Fellow at the WISE Centre for Economic Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University. Her research interests include informal caregiving, gender equality, and health and social care integration. She is a methods editor with Cochrane Public Health, co-chair of the GRADE Public Health group, and Senior Member of the ERS Clinical Practice Guidelines Methodology Network. This session is for any Cochrane authors, editors or staff. Attendees will have the opportunity to hear from experts from across Cochrane and discuss their questions directly with the speakers, Methods Support Unit and others on the call. Each month, Cochrane’s Methods Support Unit invites Cochrane Review authors, editors and staff to a 60-minute web clinic to discuss their methodological questions during the production of Cochrane Protocols and Reviews. The first half of the session is dedicated to a specific topic which has been requested by the audience or identified through the work of the Methods Support Unit. An invited speaker will present on the issue and there will be time for questions and discussion. In the second half of the session, audience members can discuss specific methodological questions they have about their Cochrane Protocols and Reviews (please submit these to the Methods Support Unit is advance here). Depending on the queries submitted, representatives from Cochrane’s Methods Group may be invited. If you have any general questions about the clinics or would like to propose a topic, please contact us via support@cochrane.org. Please note: The sessions are recorded and shared via our website for those who can’t attend, meaning their contents will be stored in the public domain.
|
|
9. Help inform developments to the Cochrane Review format: We need you!
|
|
We are calling for feedback to help prioritise features or challenges that are most important to you when it comes to the format of Cochrane Reviews. Please complete the survey to give us your ideas! Open until 13 June, takes approximately 15 minutes to complete.
|
|
The process for sending CoI referrals to the Research Integrity Editors and CoI Panel has changed. All queries relating to author CoI for a specific Cochrane protocol, review or update should now be sent via Editorial Manager, using the Ad Hoc email ‘ME CoI referral request’. This template email will pre-populate much of the information about the protocol/review/update that is required by the Research Integrity Editors and CoI Panel to advise on the referral and will include a link to the DoI forms on Convey, which should speed up the process of submitting a CoI referral. For more information on how to submit a CoI referral via Editorial Manager, please see the page ‘Referrals to the Research Integrity Editors and the Conflict of Interest (CoI) Panel’ on the CoI Portal. All other CoI queries (those that do not relate to author CoI for a specific Cochrane protocol, review or update e.g. queries about funding for a Cochrane review, funding for Cochrane groups, editor CoI, peer reviewer CoI or general queries about the policy) should be sent by email to coiarbiter@cochrane.org.
|
|
For a round-up of all upcoming Cochrane events and conferences, please click this link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have any questions about any of the above items, or about any aspect of your ME role, regardless of your location, please contact us at support@cochrane.org The Cochrane Managing Editor Support Team: Anupa Shah & Liz Dooley
|
|
|
|
|
|
|