What business value does this roadmap item create? / Which problem is this roadmap item trying to solve?

There is currently a feature to use a template for a review in Archie. This functionality is dependent on the RevMan 5 format and as part of moving to JATS as the internal format the template functionality need to be preserved and was suggested to fit best in RevMan Web.

Templates will be a key part of implementation of Focused Review Format and will replace MECIR.

Projects that have requested a template functionality in RevMan Web because they otherwise need to create the template in RevMan 5.

RoB 2
NMA

Templates are used more frequently in some review groups as a means of guiding authors to write the review article. There is a potential for templates to create more value by being more broadly used.

Authors starting a new review would be offered the right template.

Template functionality and management in Archie is described in the Knowledge base.

How can the value delivered be measured?

X reviews are using templates after the feature has been available for X time. Long-term we'd want to see an impact on reduced need for editorial feedback, how can we measure this?
Opportunity to market Cochrane's templates for external use → (confirm business case for Porto development?)
We remove a dependency on RM5 files for creating reviews via EM/Archie (Yes/No)
Impact on quality of submission
- # rounds of revision
- time to acceptance (although affected by other factors e.g. # of submissions in progress)
- # submissions with decision Major Revision or Reject after methods PR
We could do specific author satisfaction survey question related to templates?
Metrics from Porto around time to meet key development milestones? We do not have reliable 'before' data.

Which assumptions are made in relation to the value?

Templates are an effective way of guiding authors to use new methods
Templates will reduce resources spent on editorial checks and copy editing
Articles will be more consistent when using templates

What are the dependencies for fulfilling the business value?

Don't start development until new review format structure is implemented (the templates created will only be for new review format)
Process to own, update and implement templates in Cochrane in place
Agree where templates should be managed and where templates should exist Templates created by Porto, accessible in RevMan
Suggest to only have templates on organization level (not unit or author level)
Agree on technical solution
- For Archie & Porto reviews:
  - ability to override title and stage
  - in Archie, populate dropdown list from Cochrane organization list of templates
- What permissions do you need to mark a review as a template - organization admin
- What permissions do you need to edit templates? - same as any other review
- What permissions do you need to create a review of a template?
  - Porto checks whether the user should be able to create a copy of the template before making the request
    - practice key - create practice review from template (will be used in future for creating links to create reviews)
    - permanent key - create review from template (will be used in future for creating links to create reviews)
  - RevMan checks that the request is done with sysadmin permissions
- Store review id to know which template a review was created from
- Define what information should be removed from practice reviews and reviews created from templates
  - Authors removed, creator supplied instead
  - DOI removed
  - Editorial group removed
  - Publication dates/issues removed
- (Maybe in scope) Practice reviews from templates managed in Porto
  - Porto sets practice key on the review and generates a sharing link
  - Sharing link is received by user
  - RevMan checks the supplied key against the stored practice key
- Consider what we do with practice template review realm - can we migrate content to Porto?
  - Who is using it currently?
Create mockups for user journeys (for Porto team?)
- Should templates appear in My reviews? How do you know you are editing a template or practice reviews?
  - Prefix template & remove for practice review
  - Ask createor of template to define title for the person who will create the review
  - User that creates copy defines name
  - Field to indicate that review is practice review template (secret key) /organizational template (only org admin can set)→ gives us ability to display in RevMan (should not be used for any checks by reviewDB)
Relevant templates created with editorial input
- Review existing templates in Archie, ask Support for how to find these
- Now: CRGs own their own templates
- Methods support unit currently own a set of templates but should own all templates going forward
- Existing (need to be updated to new review format)
  - Protocol intervention (in use)
  - NMA (not finished)
  - Non-randomized trials (not finished)
- New
  - Protocol prognosis
  - Protocol DTA
  - Protocol qualitative (in sign off)
  - Template informed by PRISMA and MECIR reporting for new review format: https://training-revman.cochrane.org/#/createPracticeReview/257222101913352818 (to be further developer and signed off)
Replace KB article: Cochrane review template
NOTE: The standard templates should include standard references, see RIS file on https://documentation.cochrane.org/display/RMHELP/Templates+as+practice+reviews, note, references need to be checked after added in RevMan as the import has previously been an issue.

What are the risks related to this roadmap item?

From Cochrane: ownership and process for updating templates not clear → value of consistency over reviews not met

What is included in the scope of this solution?

New Cochrane reviews are created based on templates designed as part of new review format
Need to be available for reviews created both in Archie & Porto
Need to handle more than one template per review type and for both Protocol and templates (suggest to use name of template to identify?)
The templates are created in RevMan Web without RevMan 5 as an intermediary
The template functionality in Archie should be removed when it's available in RevMan/Porto
MECIR guidance should be removed from RevMan Web when Focused Review Format is enabled (could it apply to all reviews?), (RH to verify if MECIR guidance can be removed from RMW, which MECIR are being retired?)
Make Cochrane templates available for subscribers?
Enable creating your own templates for organizational subscribers - yes, not more complex
Multiple owners on templates - yes
Could practice review templates be brought into this new feature?
Default practice reviews available for templates and for practice reviews
Offer new way to create practice reviews from Porto rather than in RevMan

Stories:

API to allow specifying a source review when copying
- Change checks to allow copying from a Porto review (with correct permissions)
- Update behavior when copying a review:
  - Authors removed, creator supplied instead
  - DOI removed
  - Editorial group removed
  - Publication dates/issues removed
- Is the same API used by Archie and Porto and to create practice reviews in PRACTICE realm? Yes
- Ability to override title and stage when copying a review
- Fields added (can only be set by sys admin user) PATCH
  - practice key
  - permanent key
  - template indicator: NO, ORGANIZATION, PUBLIC
  - source review id
- Set source review id when copying
(Maybe in scope) Practice reviews from templates managed in Porto
- Porto sets practice key on the review and generates a sharing link
- Sharing link is received by user
- RevMan checks the supplied key against the stored practice key

Porto and Archie:

How much time do we estimate to implement this roadmap item?

This is a guesstimate made by the Review Production Team based on known information about the roadmap item and the capacity of the team at the time of estimation (2023-01-26).

Small = within 1 sprint = within 2 weeks.