...
Text referring to implementation phase/anonymous peer review highlighted in pink and bold
Relevant questions from COPE Journal Audit added in red
...
Cochrane Reviews are peer reviewed to ensure that they follow the published Cochrane Protocol (or any deviation from the published protocol is sufficiently explained); the research question is still valid, to identify whether any relevant and important studies have been excluded, the clinical context is correct and up-to-date, the methodology is appropriate and that the conclusions are based only upon the data available. Cochrane Reviews may be rejected before or after peer review; for example, if the methodology is unsound, or if the authors are unable to revise the review to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers. For more information, see the policy on the rejection of Cochrane Reviews.
From COPE Journal Audit:
Do your journal office and website have detailed guidelines on how you select your peer reviewer pool? [9.3.
...
1.3]
Do your journal office and website have detailed guidelines on how you select reviewers for each manuscript, if you allow authors to make recommendations of peer reviewers or request that certain people not be peer reviewers, and if/how you honour those recommendations/requests? [9.3.1.4]
2 Number and expertise of Peer reviewers
As a minimum standard, every
2 Number and expertise of Peer reviewers
As a minimum standard, every Cochrane Review will be peer-reviewed by at least one clinical/topic specialist (with a minimum of one external to the CRG editorial team) and one statistician/methodologist (who may, in certain circumstances, be part of the CRG editorial team).
...
The number and type of Peer reviewer recruited to comment upon each Cochrane Review will vary, but may include content specialists, systematic review specialists, methodologists, statisticians, information specialists and consumers or other potential users of the review.
2.1 Peer review of Cochrane Reviews of diagnostic test accuracy
From COPE Journal Audit:
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about peer reviewing special aspects such as figures/tables, statistics, supplementary material, data? [9.2.2.6]
2.1 Peer review of Cochrane Reviews of diagnostic test accuracy
The peer review process for Cochrane The peer review process for Cochrane Reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA Reviews; see section 1.3 of the Cochrane peer review policy) is managed centrally under the direction of the Editorial and Methods Department (EMD) to assure scientific quality and manage the limited peer review expertise for these reviews. Each Cochrane Review is managed through the DTA peer review process (which runs in parallel with the CRG peer review process) by a DTA contact editor who returns Peer reviewer and editorial comments to the CRG for transmission to the author.
...
Do your journal office and website have detailed guidelines on if and how authors can recommend peer reviewers or request that certain people not be peer reviewers? [9.1.1.4]
4 Peer review checklists
Cochrane peer review checklists can be used and modified as needed. It is not a requirement for CRGs to use these checklists, but some sections and statements are mandatory and must be sent to all Peer reviewers (see below). These checklists provide a structured series of questions to guide Peer reviewers through the process and provide structured peer review feedback. Guided peer review can be especially helpful to less experienced Peer reviewers or for people undertaking named peer review. The following checklists are available, and will be updated from time to time:
• External peer review of protocols
• External peer review of reviews
• External peer review of overviews of reviews [protocols]
• External peer review of overviews of reviews [review]
• Consumer review of protocols
...
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about how to review for your journal? [9.2.2.2]
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about how to write the review report? [9.2.2.3]
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about ethical peer review, including confidentiality, not using or sharing author material, and whether reviewers may contact authors or invite people to assist them in the review? [9.2.2.5]
Do you train journal staff, editors and peer reviewers to check submissions against relevant guidelines (eg, international reporting guidelines listed in the EQUATOR Network)? [9.2.5]
For intervention reviews, training is provided to support MECIR/PRISMA, but for non-intervention reviews it isn't clear which reporting guidelines are covered in training.
Do you consult and use relevant COPE resources (eg, what to consider when asked to review, peer review manipulation, peer reviewer guidelines)? [9.2.6]
We refer to Guidelines for peer reviewers. To consider which additional COPE resources to link to (manipulation).
4 Peer review checklists
Cochrane peer review checklists can be used and modified as needed. It is not a requirement for CRGs to use these checklists, but some sections and statements are mandatory and must be sent to all Peer reviewers (see below). These checklists provide a structured series of questions to guide Peer reviewers through the process and provide structured peer review feedback. Guided peer review can be especially helpful to less experienced Peer reviewers or for people undertaking named peer review. The following checklists are available, and will be updated from time to time:
• External peer review of protocols
• External peer review of reviews
• External peer review of overviews of reviews [protocols]
• External peer review of overviews of reviews [review]
• Consumer review of protocols
• Guidance on using the consumer reviewer checklist
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about how to review for your journal? [9.2.2.2]
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about how to write the review report? [9.2.2.3]
For possible for inclusion in the peer review checklist, as items that peer reviewers are 'encouraged' to do (not required):
- Do you encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions (eg, protection of patients/animals, evidence of adherence to appropriate standards, clinical trial pre-registration, consent from humans for study participation and/or publication of data)? [9.2.3.1]
- Do you encourage reviewers to comment on possible research misconduct (eg, data fabrication/falsification) [9.2.3.2]
- Do you encourage reviewers to comment on possible publication misconduct (eg, redundant publication, plagiarism, undeclared conflicts of interest) [9.2.3.3]
- Do you encourage reviewers to comment on [peer] reviewer conflicts of interest that became apparent during review? [9.2.3.4]
- Do you encourage reviewers to comment on any portions of a manuscript that they did not/could not review? [9.2.3.5]
4.1 Mandatory sections and statements that must be sent to Peer reviewers
...
EMD note: Some yes and some no; clarifications to be added to policy and guidance.added to policy and guidance.
Do you train editors and peer reviewers about declaring conflicts of interest and areas of expertise and, if needed, declining a review request? [9.2.2.4]
8 Acknowledgement
As a minimum, the names of all Peer reviewers who have submitted a peer review report or completed peer review checklist during the current calendar year will be published on the CRG website, unless the Peer reviewer has not consented to this. Lists from previous years must be archived and publically accessible from the CRG website. See Section 6 of the Cochrane peer review policy for further details.
...
Upon request, CRGs or the DTA Editorial Team should provide Peer reviewers with a copy of the authors’ responses to their peer-review comments (note that all post-publication peer review comments will receive a response). Note that with the release of Archie v4.12 (October 2016) there is a custom task in workflows to send feedback/thanks to referees and advisors.
From COPE Journal Audit:
Do you grade or give feedback on report quality to reviewers, show them other reviews, inform them of the review outcome? [9.2.4]
Policy currently states feedback should be provided on request (was in original policy). Consider whether to make any form of peer review feedback mandatory
12 Inviting Peer reviewers to be authors
...