...
Despite support and encouragement, sometimes review teams struggle to make sufficient progress with their review, or they submit draft versions that would require too much input from the CRG editorial team to meet acceptable standards. In these circumstances, the CRG may decide to withdraw the review from the authors, citing concerns over quality and the capacity of the review team to complete the review.
It should be recognised recognized that throughout the process of review preparation (be it at the title registration, protocol or review stage) the review could be taken out of the editorial process due to concerns about quality that cannot be resolved.
...
CRG editorial teams should provide details on their website of the support they can provide to their review teams. The support provided may vary from CRG to CRG and may change over time as the CRG matures or circumstances change. CRGs need to ensure that their limited resources are used to the maximum benefit of the users and funders of the CRG, so that decisions in relation to prioritisation prioritization of reviews are inevitable.
...
- make explicit to potential review teams the level and type of support they can provide;
- acknowledge receipt of completed Cochrane Title Registration Forms and inform the authors within two weeks of receipt of the Title Registration Form when they can expect to receive feedback on their proposal;
- provide potential review teams with up-to-date details of the editorial process and timelines for new proposals submitted for editorial consideration, including information concerning prioritisation prioritization of topics;
- respond to correspondence from their review teams in a timely manner;
- put potential review teams in touch with their reference Cochrane Centre if required.
...