Ressources pour les auteurs de revues

Review authors are encouraged to work with co-authors to minimise bias in the review methodology and to contribute different points of view and areas of expertise. When choosing co-authors, review authors should consider the skills needed to complete their review, for example, expertise in statistics, health economics, epidemiology, policy making. Team work is essential for the completion of a high quality review. When more than one individual is interested in doing the same review, they are encouraged to collaborate. When this is not possible, titles are registered on a 'first come, first served' basis. Alternatively, if they have the necessary expertise, they may be asked to act as a referee for the review in question. Authorship of reviews is restricted to contributors who make an active and substantial contribution (editing and design, identification of trials and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis etc.). Once a title is registered by the ARI Group, a Contact Editor is appointed to guide the review authors through to publication.

Protocols

Once the title has been accepted, the review author and co-authors will be encouraged to attend a workshop on protocol development, if they have not already done so. Review authors attending this workshop should have studied the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and have thought about their review question or developed a draft protocol. The review authors next submit a protocol to the editorial base in RevMan i.e. using software designed for the editing of Cochrane systematic reviews, generally within six months (or as agreed with the editorial base) from submission of title. An expected date of completion for the review must be provided.

The protocol will undergo both an internal and an external refereeing process. Internal refereeing involves feedback from the Contact editor and Statistical editorial; external refereeing involves two contents experts and a consumer. This is an open process and comments returned to the editorial base are forwarded to the review authors. Additional authorities may be consulted if deemed appropriate. Every effort will be made to complete the refereeing process as quickly as possible, ideally within three weeks. The Review Group Co-ordinator will provide a summary of the comments received and ask the author to make appropriate changes to the protocol. The review authors then have three weeks in which to revise and re-submit the protocol. The final protocol will be proof-read and edited by the Review Group Co-ordinator (in consultation with the review authors), approved by the Co-ordinating Editor and Contact Editor and submitted for inclusion in the ARI Group's Module for publication in the next issue of The Cochrane Library. A permission to publish form must be completed by all review authors.

During the development of the protocol the Editorial team and editorial base will provide methodological advice and technical help. Although each review author is encouraged to have his/her own statistical support on site, the ARI Group's Statistical Editor is also happy to assist review authors with any methodological issues or queries. Review authors are welcome to visit the editorial base at any stage.

Reviews

Once the protocol has been accepted, the review authors will proceed with preparing the review. Advice on methodological issues and search strategies for clinical trials will be available from the editorial base. There will be a deadline for the submission of the review of around twelve months from the approval of the protocol but no later than two years (or as agreed with the editorial base). The finished review must be submitted to the editorial base in RevMan format. It will undergo a similar refereeing process as the protocol. Every effort will be made to complete the refereeing process as quickly as possible, ideally within three weeks. The review authors then have three weeks in which to revise and re-submit the review. The final review will be proof-read and edited by the Review Group Co-ordinator (in consultation with the review authors), approved by the Co-ordinating Editor and Contact Editor and submitted for inclusion in The Cochrane Library. A permission to publish form must be completed by all review authors. Once editorial approval has been received, the edited review is sent for inclusion in the ARI Group's module for publication in the next issue of The Cochrane Library.

During the development of the review the editorial team and editorial base will provide methodological advice and technical help. Review authors are welcome to visit the editorial base at any stage. When possible, the editorial base will assist review authors in searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the ARI Group's specialised register. The editorial base will also attempt to obtain hard copies of trials for authors on request.
Contact authors receive a free copy of The Cochrane Library once their review has been published.

Updating

Reviews should be updated every two years from the date last searched. Review authors will be responsible for scanning the medical literature at least once a year to identify any newly published trials within the scope of their review and to update their review accordingly. Review authors will also be responsible for replying to any comments or criticisms that have been received via The Cochrane Library's 'Feedback' facility. Any comments received will be summarised by the Feedback Editor who will negotiate with the review authors directly regarding required changes. Updated reviews will be peer reviewed in a manner similar to that described for reviews above. The ARI Group has adopted the Editorial process guideline as set out in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (3.4.7).  After completion of the updating process, the review should be submitted to the editorial team for further processing. There is variation across Cochrane Review Groups in policies regarding when and if updated reviews go through the process of full editorial review. If an update involves no further analysis or change of result, it may not need to be refereed.

The review author will receive support from the editorial base for the task of updating the review. All contact authors receive a free subscription to The Cochrane Library if their reviews are updated within two years from the date of last publication.

If the editorial base recognises that a review has become significantly out-of-date and the responsible review authors do not take any action, the editorial base will either consider transfering responsibility for the review to a third party or withdraw the review from The Cochrane Library. The editorial base may also consider withdrawing a review from publication if it considers it to be outdated.