...

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 some circumstances, be part of the CRG editorial team – See Section 2 “Number and Expertise of Peer Reviewers” in the accompanying guidance; see Number and expertise of peer reviewers).

It is expected that CRGs aim to include at least one consumer peer reviewer per Cochrane Review; the Cochrane Consumer Network has more information on this role.

Further guidance for CRGs on the number and expertise of peer reviewers, including inviting those involved in included or excluded studies to become peer reviewers, can be found in Section 2 “Number and Expertise of Peer Reviewers” in the guidance for implementationthe accompanying guidance; see Number and expertise of peer reviewers.

Declarations of potential conflicts of interest for peer reviewers

...

Further guidance on declarations of interest for peer reviewers is available from Section 7 “Declarations ; see Declarations of potential conflicts of interest for peer reviewers” in the guidance for implementationreviewers. 

Acknowledgement and credit for peer reviewers

...

The names of all peer reviewers who have submitted a peer review report or completed peer review checklist during the current calendar year must be published on the CRG website, unless the peer reviewer has not consented to this (see Section 4 “Inviting peer reviewers” in the guidance for implementationsee Inviting peer reviewers). Lists from previous years must be archived and publically accessible from the CRG website. See also Section 9 "CRG also CRG and DTA editorial team peer review policies and procedures" in the guidance for implementation.

Peer reviewers should always be offered the option of acknowledgement in the Review to which they contributed.

Further options for acknowledging peer reviewers, including the format of peer reviewer acknowledgement in the published Cochrane Review, are included in Section 8 “Acknowledgement” in the guidance for implementationin Acknowledgement.

Addressing peer reviewers’ comments

...

Any concerns or disagreements concerning the peer review process should be resolved by the CRG. When necessary, the CRG can request that peer reviewers provide more evidence for their comments, solicit the opinion of other peer reviewers, involve the DTA Editorial team, or invite additional peer reviewers, as appropriate, to help resolve conflict. Note that authors are required to respond to peer reviewers’ comments adequately (see Section 10 "; see Ensuring that authors address peer address Peer reviewers’ comments" in the guidance for implementation).

If the CRG are unable to resolve concerns or disagreements, the case may be referred to the Editor in Chief by either the authors or the CRG, using the to the Cochrane Library appeals process or complaints procedure, as appropriate.

CRG and DTA editorial team peer review policies and procedures

All Cochrane Review Groups and the DTA Editorial Team state their specific peer review process clearly on their website, including:

...

.