Platform

Category

Question

Answer

Example cases

RevMan

Incorrect What's new events when re-publishing a review

The review was published as an Update with the correct two What's new events: Updated + New citation conclusions changed. The following month, the byline was changed & the review was republished with an addition (3rd) What's new event: Amended

When the review was re-published as an Amendment, the two What's new events: Updated + New citation conclusions changed should have been moved to the History. The re-publication should have had two What's new events: Amended + New citation conclusions not changed, as the review does need a new citation due to change in the byline order.

143768

RevMan

Changing RevMan Unique ID

How to change the Unique ID in a RevMan file

Place mouse over Unique ID number
Hold down Ctrl
Click mouse

 

Archie

Split and merge wizard

We've got 2 generic protocols that will form the basis for 20+ reviews.
Each review will have the same protocol (with a small difference in that each will have a paragraph added to the protocol section at the review stage to indicate the specific feature of that particular review). The protocol needs to be linked to the reviews for Wiley to list it under Other Versions... on the Library.

Publish the generic protocol
After publication use the Split and Merge Wizard and follow this through
(a) split a review into multiple reviews
(b) select the BRANCHED split
(c) select the Published Protocol
(d) create as many copies of the generic protocol you need
Complete the wizard
You will then have multiple copies which you can rename for each review.

136398

RevMan

Handing over a review update to a new author team

I have a published review that is quite old now. I have a new review team that is willing to take on the review but the methods need to be updated and we are including new comparisons. I'm pretty sure I can't register the same title again whilst the old review is alive and kicking.

I treat it as an update
Agree with the old team that a new team is taking over and discuss and agree authorship (some original team members may remain if they want to be involved or may be moved to acknowledgements or may stay on the by line for the first update)
Make it clear to the new team that the review needs a complete overhaul, new risk of bias, updated Background / methods etc. etc
The new review is published as an update and included in the "differences between protocol and review" is a short summary of the major changes.
The What's new also will include a brief explanation - new review team, updated background, methods, etc.

 

Archie

Protocol amendment vrs new protocol?

Our review is due for an update but the authors want to change the scope and methods substantially (broader intervention, broader inclusion criteria for participants, additional outcomes, updated methods). In this case, do we:
a. Just update, highlighting any changes under 'differences between protocol and review'
b. Publish an amended protocolc. Publish a new protocol referring to the 'old' superseded review

If such substantive changes are planned to be made for this review, you might want to consider:
Use the Updating Classification System to classify the review as 'No longer planned', using the rational 'review superseded'.
Then start a new protocol and carry on from there.

148662

 

Permissions and reprints to re-use material from the CDSR

How to quote preliminary results from a soon to be published Cochrane review.

The EPPR has a section dealing with unpublished versions:
If the Cochrane Protocol or Review is still being prepared and one of the authors wishes to include it in whole or in part, then the author(s) may include it as long as the following is included in the dissertation/thesis:
<ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="33d4df7e-e09b-4ceb-a899-e1fcbae47c43"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA["This is a draft and [pre-peer review/post-peer review] version of a [Protocol for a Cochrane Review/Cochrane Review]. Upon completion and approval, the final version is expected to be published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ([www.cochranelibrary.com

http://www.cochranelibrary.com/])."

145108

]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro>

 

Timeline from publication on CDSR to review citation appearing on MEDLINE

How long it takes from the publication of a review until they will see the citation appear in Medline. Do you know the answer to this?

PubMed submissions will take 12 months from the date of publication, of a green OA review. The citation will be registered in NLM on the day of publication, once NLM accept the NLM auto-deposition process. This will backdate to September, so all content published since then will be supplied to PubMed.

If the Gold Open Access the submission is sent to PubMed Central and made available immediately, according to the PMC rendering process. This content is then sent through to the PubMed for indexing too.

144791

Archie

Steps to republish to capture NIH grant for a review

A review has been published without acknowledging grant funding. The NIH requires all peer-reviewed publications that receive grant support to be included in PubMed Central.
What steps need to be taken to rectify this?

(1) Add the correct info to sources of support/acknowledgements and republish as an Amendment (no new citation).
(2) EMD (Harriet) to add a post-publication note to the LFP form to note that the NIH box should have been ticked – and the info has been corrected in the review.
(3) EMD (Harriet) to liaise with David Hives (Wiley) to include the correct version in PubMedCentral in line with the embargo period.

For step 2, let HM know which author received the funding as we'll need to add a note on the relevant LFP form.
HM will then write to David Hives with the DOI version of the review, and he will let NLM PMC know that there are two submissions (via Wiley and direct from author team) so there is only one entry and with the embargo period.

150337

LfP forms

Open access form

Our ME is on leave and has asked me to publish the update above with open access. Can you advise which option I should chose: CC-BY-NC-ND (Attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives) CC-BY-NC (Attribution, non-commercial) CC-BY (Attribution) *** Must be mandated by funder

The choice of licence should be referred to the author team. Recommend the author team is directed to this page to review the licence options: http://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/publishing-model/open-access

150436

Archie

Gold open access

This review has already been published but the authors would like to pay for Gold Open access.  How do we do this post-publication?

Move any What's new events to History.
Select two What's new events:
1. New citation, conclusions not changed; and
2. Amended explaining the open access option.
Mark the review for publication: the Managing Editor will select the Publish under Gold open access licence and select the correct Licence type. (A new citation has to be created in order for you to be able to select the correct open access option and generate new LfP forms).

152418