...
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.
Consumers as
...
peer reviewers
Consumers have an important role to play in the peer review of a Cochrane Review, and it is an expectation that all CRGs seek involvement from consumers, or from other potential users of the Cochrane Review. Consumer peer review ensures that Cochrane Review questions are relevant to people requiring and accessing health care, and that meaningful outcomes and potential harms are considered.
...
For additional guidance on seeking a suitable consumer , the Consumer Network recommends that all CRGs use TaskExchange to recruit for consumer speer reviewers. Also available are the ACTIVE project resources from the Cochrane Training website.
Study authors as
...
peer reviewers
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 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 peer reviewerstudies 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.
Inviting
...
peer reviewers
It is best practice to contact new potential 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 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).
...
A statement that acceptance of the invitation to Peer review for Cochrane is also taken as consent for peer reviewer details to be stored within the Cochrane peer reviewer database. (Suggestion from Ursula: We could consider updating the PR checklists to include a data protection consent option, e.g. 'By submitting this form, I consent to Cochrane storing my contact details and peer reviewer comments, for the purpose of facilitating the peer review process'?)
From COPE Journal Audit:
Do your journal office and website have detailed peer reviewer guidelines, including expected turnaround times, if potential impact is a criterion, whether they are allowed to contact the authors, whether they are allowed to seek peer review assistance, whether there are template forms, whether confidential notes/scores/recommendations to the editor are expected/allowed, and that the editor makes decisions on acceptance/rejection? [9.1.2]
EMD note: Some yes and some no; clarifications to be added to policy and guidance.
Managing named peer review
From January 2019, and consistent with Cochrane's core principles, including open and transparent communication and decision making, all CRGs will adopt a named peer review process, in which the Cochrane Review author and peer reviewer know each other’s names and affiliations during the peer review process. See section 2 of the Cochrane Peer Review Policy.
During the implementation phase of the peer review policy (until January 2019), peer reviewers may wish to opt out of named peer review and remain anonymous to the authors. The following describes a suggested method for managing this process when using Archie Workflows.
When peer reviewers return comments to CRGs through whatever format (e.g. checklist or email with a list of comments), the CRG should check that the peer reviewer has agreed to take part in named peer review. If the peer reviewer wishes to remain anonymous, the CRG should add a note to the peer reviewer’s Properties sheet in Archie as follows:.
Ensure the peer reviewer has been assigned a Group role of 'Peer reviewer'.
Create a new Administrative note with the Title ‘2018 closed peer review submitted’.
Add the name of the protocol/review to the Note text.
CRGs can then search for all peer reviewers that have submitted closed peer review by using the Advanced Search in Archie as follows:.
The People option should be selected at the top with the Match all rows (AND) option.
Role in Entity | Peer reviewer | Eyes and Vision Group | Active
Note Title | Contains | 2018 closed peer review submitted
From COPE Journal Audit:
Do your journal office and website have detailed guidelines on the confidentiality of peer review? [9.1.1.7]
EMD note: Peer reviewer invitation email states that peer review must be confidential, but we operate a system of named peer review. Also included in expectations of peer reviewers. Needs some clarification.
Delegation of peer review responsibilities
Cochrane recognises the need for training and mentoring for early career researchers, and the delegation of peer review responsibilities to junior staff members is therefore permitted under certain circumstances. For example, when the junior staff member is a subject expert and the experience is used as a training/mentoring exercise. The invited peer reviewer must request permission from the CRG, or the DTA Editorial Team if appropriate, to delegate their responsibilities, and must provide the full name and contact details (including position and institutional email address) for the junior staff member so that they can be acknowledged appropriately. The invited peer reviewer must sign-off on, and take responsibility for, the final peer review report. Both the original peer reviewer and the delegated peer reviewer must return the “Potential conflicts of interest” and the “Permissions” statements from the peer review checklist; they may both be acknowledged in the permitted ways for their contributions to the peer review report.
Note that the CRG and DTA Editorial Teams are under no obligation to grant permission to delegate peer review responsibilities
From COPE Journal Audit:
Do your journal office and website have detailed peer reviewer guidelines, including expected turnaround times, if potential impact is a criterion, whether they are allowed to contact the authors, whether they are allowed to seek peer review assistance, whether there are template forms, whether confidential notes/scores/recommendations to the editor are expected/allowed, and that the editor makes decisions on acceptance/rejection? [9.1.2]
EMD note: Some yes and some no; clarifications to be added to policy and guidance.
Declarations of potential conflicts of interest for peer reviewers
Peer reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest every time they undertake peer review of a Cochrane Review. See Section 5 of the Cochrane peer review policy for further details.
Standard Cochrane peer review checklists include a declaration of potential conflicts of interest (Figure 1). If a CRG uses a modified version of the checklist, it must include this question, without any amendments. CRGs that do not use the standard checklists, and the DTA Editorial Team, must ensure that this question is included in the materials sent to the peer reviewer. The response from the peer reviewer should be reviewed and recorded in Archie.
Figure 1: Peer reviewer potential conflicts of interest statement
Peer reviewers must state their current affiliations(s) clearly. People with a direct financial interest in a particular intervention should not peer review a Cochrane Review of that intervention. If a peer reviewer is an author of an included/excluded trial or study (study author) this should be made clear in the Conflict of Interest statement, but they can remain a peer reviewer, as long as there is no financial interest in the intervention.
It is the responsibility of the CRG or DTA Editorial Team to decide whether potential conflicting interests are sufficient to withdraw the participation of the peer reviewer and to invite an alternative peer reviewer. If the CRG or DTA Editorial Team considers the conflict of interest to be minor and agrees that it is unlikely to affect the judgement of the peer reviewer, the CRG or DTA Editorial Team must disclose the potential conflict of interest to the review authors when sharing the peer reviewer’s comments. If the CRG or DTA Editorial Team considers the conflict of interest to be major and agrees that it is possible that it will affect the judgement of the peer reviewer, the peer reviewer must be replaced.
If necessary, the CRG or DTA Editorial Team may request advice from the Cochrane funding arbiter.
From COPE Journal Audit:
COI and peer review | Does your journal require reviewers to report any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a specific submission? [4.2.2.1]
EMD note: In the peer review guidance it is best practice to send the peer review form (which contains COI questions) when inviting peer reviewers so that they can consider COI policy before agreeing to review, but returning the COI statements before agreeing to review is not currently mandatory.
Do your journal office and website have detailed peer reviewer guidelines, including expected turnaround times, if potential impact is a criterion, whether they are allowed to contact the authors, whether they are allowed to seek peer review assistance, whether there are template forms, whether confidential notes/scores/recommendations to the editor are expected/allowed, and that the editor makes decisions on acceptance/rejection? [9.1.2]
EMD note: Some yes and some no; clarifications to be added to policy and guidance.
...
Managing named peer review
From January 2019, and consistent with Cochrane's core principles, including open and transparent communication and decision making, all CRGs will adopt a named peer review process, in which the Cochrane Review author and peer reviewer know each other’s names and affiliations during the peer review process. See section 2 of the Cochrane Peer Review Policy.
During the implementation phase of the peer review policy (until January 2019), peer reviewers may wish to opt out of named peer review and remain anonymous to the authors. The following describes a suggested method for managing this process when using Archie Workflows.
When peer reviewers return comments to CRGs through whatever format (e.g. checklist or email with a list of comments), the CRG should check that the peer reviewer has agreed to take part in named peer review. If the peer reviewer wishes to remain anonymous, the CRG should add a note to the peer reviewer’s Properties sheet in Archie as follows:.
Ensure the peer reviewer has been assigned a Group role of 'Peer reviewer'.
Create a new Administrative note with the Title ‘2018 closed peer review submitted’.
Add the name of the protocol/review to the Note text.
CRGs can then search for all peer reviewers that have submitted closed peer review by using the Advanced Search in Archie as follows:.
The People option should be selected at the top with the Match all rows (AND) option.
Role in Entity | Peer reviewer | Eyes and Vision Group | Active
Note Title | Contains | 2018 closed peer review submitted
Delegation of peer review responsibilities
Cochrane recognises the need for training and mentoring for early career researchers, and the delegation of peer review responsibilities to junior staff members is therefore permitted under certain circumstances. For example, when the junior staff member is a subject expert and the experience is used as a training/mentoring exercise. The invited peer reviewer must request permission from the CRG, or the DTA Editorial Team if appropriate, to delegate their responsibilities, and must provide the full name and contact details (including position and institutional email address) for the junior staff member so that they can be acknowledged appropriately. The invited peer reviewer must sign-off on, and take responsibility for, the final peer review report. Both the original peer reviewer and the delegated peer reviewer must return the “Potential conflicts of interest” and the “Permissions” statements from the peer review checklist; they may both be acknowledged in the permitted ways for their contributions to the peer review report.
Note that the CRG and DTA Editorial teams are under no obligation to grant permission to delegate peer review responsibilities.
Declarations of potential conflicts of interest for peer reviewers
Peer reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest every time they undertake peer review of a Cochrane Review. See Section 5 of the Cochrane peer review policy for further details.
Standard Cochrane peer review checklists include a declaration of potential conflicts of interest (Figure 1). If a CRG uses a modified version of the checklist, it must include this question, without any amendments. CRGs that do not use the standard checklists, and the DTA Editorial Team, must ensure that this question is included in the materials sent to the peer reviewer. The response from the peer reviewer should be reviewed and recorded in Archie.
Figure 1: Peer reviewer potential conflicts of interest statement
Peer reviewers must state their current affiliations(s) clearly. People with a direct financial interest in a particular intervention should not peer review a Cochrane Review of that intervention. If a peer reviewer is an author of an included/excluded trial or study (study author) this should be made clear in the Conflict of Interest statement, but they can remain a peer reviewer, as long as there is no financial interest in the intervention.
It is the responsibility of the CRG or DTA Editorial Team to decide whether potential conflicting interests are sufficient to withdraw the participation of the peer reviewer and to invite an alternative peer reviewer. If the CRG or DTA Editorial Team considers the conflict of interest to be minor and agrees that it is unlikely to affect the judgement of the peer reviewer, the CRG or DTA Editorial Team must disclose the potential conflict of interest to the review authors when sharing the peer reviewer’s comments. If the CRG or DTA Editorial Team considers the conflict of interest to be major and agrees that it is possible that it will affect the judgement of the peer reviewer, the peer reviewer must be replaced.
If necessary, the CRG or DTA Editorial Team may request advice from the Cochrane funding arbiter.
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.
...
The Tasks option should be selected at the top with the Match all rows (AND) option.
Group | Is | Name of CRG
Workflow Role | Is | Peer reviewer
Task Name | Is | Review and comment on draft protocol
Status | Is | Completed
Start | After | 01/01/2018
End or Due | Before | 30/04/2018
The list generated would then need to be checked as the above search still catches the ‘Review and comment on draft review’ task where it has been skipped or completed (but the peer reviewer has failed to send feedback and the decision 'No Response' was recorded against the Decision: Comments clear and complete?).
...
The People option should be selected at the top with the Match all rows (AND) option.
Role in Group | Referee | Eyes and Vision Group | Active
Note Title | Contains | 2018 peer reviewed and agreed acknowledgement
To display the list of peer reviewers on the CRG website, add a page to your website titled "Peer reviewers 2018". A suggested format for this webpage is below (the list of peer reviewers names can be a chronological list, an alphabetical list, separated by country or type of peer reviewer etc. The decision rests with the CRG):
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of all peer reviewers. The Cochrane X Group aims to involve clinical Peer and consumer reviewers in the assessment of all protocols and reviews before publication. The following people have contributed to the peer review process in 2018:
Clinical reviewers:
XXXX
XXXX
Consumer reviewers:
XXXX
XXXX
We also wish to acknowledge reviewers who have chosen to remain anonymous.
See Cochrane Wounds for an example of how the annual lists of peer reviewers can be displayed on the CRG website.
...
ORCID identifiers can be recorded in s’ peer reviewers' individual Archie accounts; see International editorial organizations: information for Cochrane Editors.
Collating
...
peer review comments
Peer review comments should be collated before sending to the Authors. Ensure that names and affiliations are included for those participating in named peer review, and removed for those not participating in named peer review. Peer reviewer comments may be edited for clarity and also if they are contrary to Cochrane standards; comments may also be merged or prioritised.
Ensuring that authors address
...
peer reviewers’ comments
Authors must provide a point-by-point response to peer review comments indicating how they have been addressed. CRGs and the DTA Editorial Team are under no obligation to undertake any further editorial steps until they are able to check the corrected version meets the requirements of the sthe peer reviewers. See Section 7 of the Cochrane peer review policy for further information.
The CRG or DTA Editor with sign-off responsibility for the Cochrane Review is responsible for ensuring that authors have considered and incorporated any relevant and reasonable s’ peer reviewers’ comments that they receive.
From COPE Journal Audit:
...
Feedback to
...
peer reviewers
Providing comments and feedback to peer reviewers should improve the quality of peer review reports over time. Feedback is particularly valuable to new consumer peer reviewers and will motivate them to continue the relationship with Cochrane. You might consider implementing a mentoring system, whereby experienced consumer peer reviewers give support to new consumer speer reviewers.
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.
...
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
Inviting peer reviewers to be authors
If a a peer reviewer’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.
...