Proposal Manager tasks

Purpose of Proposal Manager role

All new and updated Cochrane reviews begin with a research proposal. The Proposal Manager is responsible for processing these proposals, and in corresponding with authors and topic experts/SMEs. This is a key role which allows new reviews to begin. 

The role can be broken down into three elements:

1. Initial quality assessment (QA)/triage of proposals. Proposals that fail to meet certain criteria are rejected by the Proposal Manager.
   1. Working predominately in Editorial Manager.
   2. Liaising as needed with the Proposal Team (Toby Lasserson, Roses Parker and others) predominately via the #proposal-management Slack channel.
2. Facilitating subject matter expert (SME) review and discussion of proposals that pass triage, including queries to authors.
   1. Working directly with SMEs entirely through Editorial Manager.  Queries arising can be posted into the #proposal-management channel for guidance.
3. Processing SME decisions to accept or reject proposals.
   1. Working entirely within Editorial Manager. 

The role is managed through the Proposals Manager inbox and Proposals Manager role within Editorial Manager, in order to:

• Maintain consistency of 'Proposal Manager' comms to/from authors and SMEs.
• Retain all email correspondence in a centralised email address.

Receive new proposal

Log in to the Central EM site with the Proposal Manager role

When a new proposal is received, it will be assigned to you. You can also view the folder New Submissions Requiring Assignment and choose Assign Editor. Select the Proposal Manager editorial role and choose whether or not to send an assignment notification email.

New proposals will be visible in your New Assignments.

View Submission to open the proposal as a PDF.

Assess new proposal

Submit Editor's Decision and Comments > Reject > Proceed to notify the authors of a reject decision in any of the situations below:

Assess update proposal 

Pre-approved proposals from Cochrane groups

Staff in Cochrane groups (e.g. Cochrane Review Groups and Thematic Groups) can use article type Cochrane group proposal (pre-approved) to request:

• creation of a new protocol
• published review is opened up to authors to begin an update

TWO CHECKS ARE NEEDED BEFORE THESE PROPOSALS MOVE DIRECTLY TO ACCEPTANCE. 

1. Is the person submitting the proposal a member of staff in a Cochrane group?
   1. View Submission or read Additional information on Manuscript details. The person submitting must confirm they are a member of group staff and/or provide the contact name of a group staff member.
   2. Search for the person's name on the Cochrane group declaration of interest site > you can use the Group or Person option.  
   3. If person is listed under the group, or is listed as the main contact on the Confluence page of Groups, this can proceed to check 2. If not:
      1. Open a Discussion with the group contact named in the proposal or use the action Send Email to confirm the proposal has been approved by the group. If it has not been approved by the group, please Reject and request authors submit a proposal using the appropriate, non-pre-approved form.
   4. If unclear, contact Cochrane Support or Rachel Klabunde  to confirm.
2. Is correspondence with previous authors attached if needed?
   1. If the group is proposing to supersede a published review with a new protocol, with byline changes (same title, but different author team to previous published version), there should be correspondence from the previous authors attached to the proposal. The answers to the Additional Information questions should make this clear. If you have any queries, please raise on Slack.

• Add submission flag Pre-approved by Cochrane group if not already added. 
• Move directly to Accept - group can provide support to authors.
• The acceptance email will go to the group contact. You must add the authors listed in the proposal form in CC.

Commissioned reviews

Cochrane Commissioning Editor Roses Parker works with authors to commission high-priority reviews and updates. 

These reviews should have the following wording in the question on funding and commissioning: Commissioned by Roses Parker, Cochane Commissioning Editor.

ONLY ONE CHECK IS NEEDED BEFORE THESE PROPOSALS MOVE DIRECTLY TO ACCEPTANCE. 

If the authors are proposing to supersede a published review with a new protocol, with byline changes (same title, but different author team to previous published version), there should be correspondence from the previous authors attached to the proposal. The answers to the Additional Information questions should make this clear. If you have any queries, please raise on Slack.

• Add submission flag Commissioned Review if not already added. 
• Contact Roses Parker via Slack or email and share the title and author team to confirm the review is commissioned. 
• When you hear back, move directly to Accept - group can provide support to authors.

Confirm section/category (topic area)

• Check which section/category (topic area) the author has selected.
• If incorrect, Edit Submission to adjust.
• If unclear to which topic area the proposal is relevant, or if it does fit within the scope of any section/category, contact the Deputy Editor in Chief via Ad Hoc email (Send Email > Editor Query - blank for any message).

Set flags

Has the review been funded or commissioned?

• Funded > set funding flag e.g. NIHR
• Commissioned > if agreed with a Cochrane group > set flag Pre-approved by Cochrane group

If the proposal has been pre-approved you can go directly to inviting clinical/topic experts to a Discussion - you do not need to assign a peer review task to the Evidence Pipeline team. 

Await proposal report from Commissioning Editor

• Roses Parker (Commissioning Editor) and Toby Lasserson (Deputy in Chief) receive an automated report each week of proposals received in the previous 7 days. They return the report during the following week and will recommend a decision for each proposal. Follow-up actions are shown below in each case: 
  • Accept
    • Is the review with an active group? Check the section/category of the proposal against the list of active groups at Changes to CRGs 2022-2023.
    • If the proposal falls within the topic expertise of an active group, open a Discussion with the group to confirm if they can provide support. Use the Discussion template Accepted proposal – offer author support?
    • Await the group's response before continuing.
    • If the review is not with an active group, process decision following instructions below at or "Accept - no support available".
    • When groups respond, follow instructions below at either "Accept - group can provide support to authors" or "Accept - no support available". Add to proposal manuscript notes: "Commissioning Editor recommends accept".
  • Reject
    • Follow instructions below at "Reject"
  • Open discussion with topic experts
    • Follow instructions below to "Assign peer review task to Evidence Pipeline team"

Assign peer review task to Evidence Pipeline team

• Invite Reviewers > Reviewer Settings > Edit
• Set number of Required Reviews = 1
• Un-invite/Un-assign = 0
• Reviewer search > Last Name > Platt, Noel-Storr or Bridges (Joanne Platt, Anna Noel-Storr and Charlene Bridges are Information Specialists working within CET)
• Assign
• Choose letter > PICO check assignment: Information Specialist
• Proceed

Set flag Awaiting PICO check

• When the results of the PICO check come in the submission will move to Submission with Required Reviews Complete
• Remove flag Awaiting PICO check and set flag Evidence Pipeline check.
• View Reviews and Comments > paste Evidence Pipeline team notes in Production Notes field (this is to allow the comments to be pulled into the Discussion invitation email to topic experts).
• Add the following text ahead of the pasted comment in the Production Notes field: -  Evidence Pipeline team notes from PICO screen: 

Invite clinical/topic experts to a Discussion

Initiate Discussion > Proposal for consideration 

If the proposal has been pre-approved by a Cochrane group, add the following text at the start of the topic window:

--The proposal mentions that this review has been pre-approved by Cochrane %GROUP_NAME%. If this is the case, please reply briefly to confirm and we can mark the proposal as Accepted to create the protocol in RevMan.-- 

You should also:

• Remove the mention of the Evidence Pipeline check from the Topic template and the Discussion invitation letters. 

Select relevant participants, searching by:

• People Flag Name = section/category

Some topic experts have specified particular areas of expertise for proposals. These are noted in their People Notes. To view People Notes alongside section/category flags, run the EAR report Proposal Editors with notes. 

• Editor roles for participants may be Proposal Editor, Sign-Off Editor, Handling Editor. Where Sign-Off Editors are also happy to act as Proposal Editors this will be indicated by an additional People Flag. 
• If the proposal spans more than one topic area, consider including topic experts from all relevant areas

Proceed to Customize Letters > Discussion Invitation: Proposals > Confirm Selections and Proceed to send invitation emails. (Customize > Preview Letter to preview the email.)

• Close and set flag With Editor

If clinical/topic experts do not respond to a Discussion

• Send a reminder to participants at 7 and 14 days.
• If no response from topic experts after 21 days, Initiate a new Discussion with Deputy Editor in Chief, Toby Lasserson and Commissioning Editor, Roses Parker, for a final decision.
• Note to Toby and Roses if Evidence Pipeline check suggests the proposed review would create new evidence, or there are new studies available for inclusion in an updated review.

Review Discussion responses

• You will be notified by email when an participant responds to a Discussion.
• Act on the first response posted. If multiple participants respond quickly, with conflicting options, proceed with the senior editor's selection (check with Roses/Toby if unclear which participant has seniority).
• The Discussion topic asks particpants to recommend an Accept or Reject decision for the proposal. If no clear accept or reject decision has been made, go back to the participants to clarify. 
• The Discussion topic asks particpants in active groups (see Changes to CRGs 2022-2023). to state whether their group can provide support. If this is not clear, go back to the participants to clarify. 
• If the Proposal Editor(s) respond to the Discussion to say they do not have the required expertise, ask for recommendations for other participants. 
• If the Proposal Editor(s) respond to the Discussion with further queries for the authors, copy and paste the Discussion comments into the template Flexible email (all authors) and ask the authors for further input. Post the authors' comment in the Discussion when they respond, and ask the participants to make a final Accept or Reject decision on the basis of the information provided. 
• If no clear accept or reject decision and Evidence Pipeline check suggests the proposed review would create new evidence, or there are new studies available for inclusion in an updated review escalate to Deputy Editor in Chief, Toby Lasserson, for a final decision.

Post a comment in the Discussion:

Follow the steps for options 1, 2 or 3 below.

Follow the steps for options 1, 2 or 3 below.

1. Accept - group can provide support to authors

• Submit Editor's Decision and Comments > Accept > select decision letter Editor decision - Accept (proposal)
• Edit the RED, BOLD paragraph in the email to add in the name of the current Managing Editor or group lead as a named contact. For a list of current group leads in active groups, see Changes to CRGs 2022-2023
• Add to the email any feedback the discussion participants may have provided for the authors 
• CC. Managing Editor or group lead 
  • If you are accepting a pre-approved proposal, the acceptance email will automatically be addressed to the Cochrane group contact.
  • You must add the authors listed in the proposal form in CC.
  • Edit the first line of the email to add the name of the Corresponding Author.
• Send email
• Go to (3) below - Await confirmation of protocol creation 

2. Accept - no support available

High-profile submission?

• Have the editors in the Discussion indicated that the proposed review could be high-profile?
• No - proceed to Accept proposal
• Yes - start a discussion with the Deputy Editor in Chief.
• Initiate Discussion > High-profile review potentially eligible for pre-submission support

• Select relevant editor participants, searching by:

  • Last Name | Equal to | Lasserson

  Proceed to Customize Letters > Discussion Invitation > Confirm Selections and Proceed to send invitation emails. (Customize > Preview Letter to preview the email.)

  Submission will move to Submissions with Active Discussions.

• Wait 3 days for response. If no response within 3 days, assume the authors are not eligible for pre-submission support
• Conclude Discussion (all Discussions)

Accept proposal

• Submit Editor's Decision and Comments > Accept > select decision letter Editor Decision – Accept Proposal 
• Remove the RED, BOLD paragraph in the email related to author support
• Add to the email any feedback the discussion participants may have provided for the authors 
• If relevant, edit template email to reflect pre-submission support available

3. Reject

• Conclude Discussion
• Submit Editor's Decision and Comments > Reject > Proceed
• Select most appropriate reject decision letter (most common will likely be priority)
• Send