...
At least one subject-specialist must be external to the CRG editorial team (i.e. has no current editorial role). Fields are a potential source of subject peer review expertise external to the CRG editorial team.
The number of s and ofpeer reviewersand the mix of expertise should be appropriate for the topic and complexity of the Cochrane Review (for example, Reviews covering a multidisciplinary topic might need to seek several specialist s). Peer reviewers with different skills (e.g. methods, specialists) should be guided to look at specific aspects of a review (for example, it might be appropriate to guide methodologists to comment only upon the methods section of the Review).
...
When a Cochrane Review covers a topic that is relevant to the scope of a Cochrane Field, it is advisable to contact the Field to obtain a subject-specialist peer reviewer. Cochrane Fields have access to methodologists, clinicians, policy-makers and consumers with expertise and experience relevant to their topic area. Obtaining peer review input from a Field can ensure that the review has addressed all methodological and clinical issues appropriately and has maximum relevance to, and impact upon, the external stakeholders in this area.
...
In particular, the role of consumers in the peer review of protocols for Cochrane Reviews is to highlight or identify additional outcomes of importance. Consumer s also Consumer peer reviewers also check the language used in a Cochrane Review, ensuring that the Review is sensitive to consumers, medical terminology is used sparingly and jargon is explained wherever possible; the intention is that reviews can be read easily by a wide audience. Note that, in some cases, consumers are also topic specialists.
...
It may be necessary for authors of trials or studies included in a Cochrane Review (study authors) to be invited to be s; for example, when the field is small and it is difficult to find s with peer reviewerswith expertise in the field. This is acceptable as long as at least one other is external to the CRG editorial team and independent of any studies included in the review. The fact that a is an author of an included trial must be made clear in the conflict of interest statement, and the authors of the Cochrane Review should be made aware of this when receiving peer review comments.
...
It is best practice to contact new potential s peer reviewers at an institutional email address rather than a generic email address (for example, Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) to reduce the risk of fraud. This can occur when someone other than a legitimate is able to complete a peer review report by intercepting an invitation email. Of course, there are circumstances when this might not be possible and, in such cases, the CRG editorial team should be aware of the risk and proceed with common sense. Peer reviewers' contact details should be stored in Archie, not in external spreadsheets. A link to the academic / professional profile of potential can be added to a Note on the review's Properties sheet. Please encourage new s peer reviewers to create a Cochrane Account (https://account.cochrane.org/) so that they can be added to a workflow. If you create an Archie person record for a new , this will automatically create a linked Cochrane Account, and the will be sent an email with instructions to activate the account and choose a password. If the chooses not to activate their account, their details will remain in Archie (the activation email informs them of this).
...
- Published protocol (for reviews);
- Title proposal/registration form (for protocols);
- Full manuscript (note that this should only be shared with s peer reviewers after the invitation to review has been accepted);
- Screening documents from the screening team at the Editorial and Methods Department, if available;
- Review-specific information, such as completed data extraction forms and copies of the included/excluded studies (for reviews);
- Peer review checklist – either the generic Cochrane version, the CRG-specific version, or the mandatory sections of the peer review checklist if no checklist is used (see section 4.1), including:
- potential conflicts of interest declaration;
- permission to include the peer reviewers name in the collated peer review comments to the author, in the acknowledgements section of the Cochrane Review and on the CRG website;
- mandatory statements
...
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 s peer reviewers (see below). These checklists provide a structured series of questions to guide s peer reviewers through the process and provide structured peer review feedback. Guided peer review can be especially helpful to less experienced s peer reviewers or for people undertaking named peer review. The following checklists are available, and will be updated from time to time:
...
Note that Publons has the facility to upload full peer review reports. As s peer reviewers of Cochrane Reviews are bound to confidentiality until the Cochrane Review is published (see the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers), peer review reports of Cochrane Reviews that have yet to be published should not be posted to Publons. Any confidential comments to the Editor should also not be posted on Publons.
...
Providing comments and feedback to s peer reviewers should improve the quality of peer review reports over time. Feedback is particularly valuable to new consumer s peer reviewers and will motivate them to continue the relationship with Cochrane. You might consider implementing a mentoring system, whereby experienced consumer s peer reviewers give support to new consumer s.
Upon request, CRGs or the DTA Editorial Team should provide s 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.
...
Policy currently states feedback should be provided on request (was in original policy). Consider whether to make any form of peer review feedback mandatory
Inviting
...
peer reviewers to be authors
If a ’s comments or recommendations result in major modifications to a Cochrane Review and the has relevant expertise, the Cochrane Review author team may invite the to become a co-author. The invitation must be made after the peer-review process is completed and with the agreement of the existing author team, and the must contribute sufficiently to the Cochrane Review to fulfil Cochrane authorship criteria; otherwise they may be recognised in the Acknowledgements section of the Cochrane Review. Peer reviewers are under no obligation to accept the invitation to become authors.
...