1. technology and computing
2. software
3. databases

Cochrane Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource
The Cochrane Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource brings together Cochrane’s editorial
and publishing policies, as well as general information about the editorial and publishing
processes, and the published products, including The Cochrane Library.
The Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual, which addresses organisational policies,
complements this resource.
The Cochrane Editorial Unit welcomes feedback and suggestions for improvement. For queries
relating to a specific section of the resource, please direct your query to the section editor listed
at the end of the section. For general queries, please contact Harriet MacLehose
([email protected]), Senior Editor, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
View the latest substantive changes.
* Sections in development
Page 1/187
Cochrane Editorial and ... .............................................. 1
-- Overview of the Cochrane Library and related content ........................... 5
---- Introduction ...................................................... 5
---- Databases included in the Cochrane Library ................................. 6
------ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) .......................... 6
------ Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) ..................... 11
------ Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) ................................. 12
------ About The Cochrane Collaboration ..................................... 12
------ Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) ......................... 13
------ Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) ............................ 14
------ NHS Economic Evaluation Database .................................... 14
---- Features ........................................................ 15
---- Cochrane Summaries ............................................... 16
---- Derivative products ................................................. 17
---- Partnership products ................................................ 18
---- Editorial team .................................................... 19
---- The Cochrane Library Oversight Committee ................................ 20
---- Publisher ....................................................... 21
---- The Cochrane Library complaints procedure ................................ 21
-- Publishing model ................................................... 22
---- Overview of access options for the Cochrane Library .......................... 22
---- Open access ..................................................... 24
---- Including Cochrane Reviews and Protocols in PubMed Central ................... 28
---- Access to archived Cochrane Reviews ................................... 30
---- Complimentary access to the Cochrane Library ............................. 30
---- Advertising ...................................................... 32
---- Readability ...................................................... 32
---- Translation ...................................................... 32
------ Translation ..................................................... 32
------ Translation projects ............................................... 33
---- patientAccess .................................................... 45
-- Cochrane Review development ......................................... 46
---- Cochrane Handbooks ............................................... 46
------ Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ................... 46
------ Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews ..................... 46
---- Editorial process .................................................. 46
---- Registering titles .................................................. 46
------ Registering titles for new Cochrane Reviews ............................... 46
------ Co-registration of titles with the Campbell Collaboration ....................... 48
---- Managing expectations .............................................. 48
---- Standards for Cochrane Reviews ....................................... 51
------ MECIR ........................................................ 51
------ PLEACS ....................................................... 51
---- Figures and tables ................................................. 53
---- Cochrane Review updates ............................................ 54
Page 2/187
-- Cochrane Review management ......................................... 56
---- Avoiding duplication of Cochrane Reviews ................................. 56
---- Guidelines for managing reviews with overlapping scope ........................ 56
---- Protocol templates ................................................. 58
---- IMS workflow for Cochrane Reviews ..................................... 58
---- Peer review ...................................................... 59
---- Cochrane Editorial Unit pre-publication screening of new Cochrane systematic reviews of
interventions ....................................................... 59
---- Copy-editing ..................................................... 59
---- Overview of date fields in Cochrane Reviews ............................... 65
---- What’s New events (publishing events) in Cochrane Reviews: new publication, new
citation, or change in publication status ..................................... 66
---- Reporting search dates in Cochrane Reviews ............................... 71
---- Updating Classification System for Cochrane Reviews ......................... 74
---- Changes to citation and author details in published Cochrane Reviews .............. 74
---- Policy on withdrawing published Cochrane Reviews (including protocols) ............. 75
---- Dual publication of a Cochrane Review by more than one Cochrane Review Group ...... 77
---- Process in the event of serious errors in published Cochrane Reviews .............. 77
---- Complimentary access to selected Wiley journals for Cochrane Review Groups and
Satellites .......................................................... 79
---- International editorial policies and good practice ............................. 79
---- Managing the publication of gold open access Cochrane Reviews and Protocols ........ 80
-- Information technology ............................................... 82
---- Review Manager (RevMan) ........................................... 82
---- Archie ......................................................... 83
---- Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) ..................................... 89
---- IMS workflow for Cochrane Reviews ..................................... 89
---- Publication cycle and interaction between Cochrane and publisher systems ........... 90
---- Preview published PDF service ........................................ 92
---- Other software resources ............................................ 92
-- Ethical considerations ................................................ 93
---- Authorship and contributorship ......................................... 93
---- Conflicts of interest and Cochrane Reviews ................................ 95
------ Implementing the conflict of interest policy in practice ........................ 102
---- Libel ......................................................... 108
---- Plagiarism ..................................................... 108
---- Protection of human subjects and animals in research ........................ 120
-- Licence for publication forms .......................................... 120
---- Cochrane Reviews and Protocols ...................................... 121
------ Licence for Publication: Cochrane Review ............................... 121
------ Licence for publication: Protocol for a Cochrane Review ...................... 125
------ Licence for publication: CC BY open access (Cochrane Review) ................ 129
------ Licence for publication: CC BY open access (Protocol for a Cochrane Review) ....... 132
------ Licence for publication: CC BY-NC open access (Cochrane Review) .............. 135
------ Licence for publication: CC BY-NC open access (Protocol for a Cochrane Review) .... 138
Page 3/187
------ Licence for publication: CC BY-NC-ND open access (Cochrane Review) ...........
------ Licence for publication: CC BY-NC-ND open access (Protocol for a Cochrane Review) ..
------ Addendum to licence for publication of a World Health Organization (WHO) manuscript
as a Cochrane Protocol or Review ........................................
------ Addendum to licence for publication of a Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
manuscript as a Cochrane Protocol or Review ................................
------ Submitting forms on behalf of an author .................................
---- Cochrane Editorials ...............................................
------ Licence for Publication: Cochrane Editorials ..............................
-- Co-publication ....................................................
---- Introduction ....................................................
---- Requirements for co-publication .......................................
---- Scenarios addressed in this policy ......................................
---- Agreements between journals and the CDSR for co-publication of Cochrane Reviews ...
---- Appendices .....................................................
------ Appendix 1. List of journals with agreements to publish summaries of Cochrane
Reviews in another journal or resource (e.g. a ‘Cochrane Corner’) ..................
------ Appendix 2. Permission to co-publish an abridged version of a Cochrane Review in a
journal: form .......................................................
------ Appendix 3. List of journals with Cochrane co-publication agreements .............
------ Appendix 4. List of high-profile journals .................................
------ Appendix 5. Workflow for co-publishing Cochrane Reviews (including updates) in other
journals ..........................................................
------ Appendix 6. Templates: Correspondence between Cochrane Review Group and author..
------ Appendix 7. Template: Co-publication agreement for journals ..................
-- Permissions and reprints .............................................
---- Permission to re-use material from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews .....
---- Permission to re-use of material from The Cochrane Library website ...............
---- Permission to re-use material from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions ......................................................
---- Reprints of Cochrane Reviews ........................................
---- Inclusion of a Cochrane Protocol or Review in a thesis or dissertation ..............
-- Correspondence, dissemination, and impact ................................
---- Feedback ......................................................
---- Disseminating Cochrane Reviews ......................................
---- Translation .....................................................
---- Impact factor ....................................................
-- About this resource ................................................
---- Sections in development ............................................
---- Latest substantive changes ..........................................
---- How to get involved ...............................................
---- Feedback and queries ..............................................
---- Acknowledgements ...............................................
Page 4/187
141
144
147
150
153
154
154
159
160
161
163
168
168
169
169
169
171
171
173
176
179
179
180
180
181
181
181
181
181
185
185
185
185
186
186
186
186
Overview of the Cochrane Library and related content
Introduction
As shown in Figure 1, Cochrane produces a wide range of content to contribute to healthcare
decision-making.
Cochrane defines core products as those products published in the Cochrane Library. The
Cochrane Library also includes a number of features, which are ‘added-value’ products, such
as podcasts and special collections of reviews. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
also has occasional supplements, such as for the abstracts of the annual Cochrane Colloquium
and for Cochrane Methods. Features and supplements are intended to drive usage to our core
products rather than generate income.
Cochrane’s derivative products are stand-alone products that include and/or are derived from
Cochrane-produced databases.They are intended to be income-generating. We also work with
partners to develop products (partner products) to increase the reach of Cochrane Reviews and
related content. See the respective sections outlining current derivative and partnership
products.
Figure 1 Overview of the Cochrane Library and related content
Page 5/187
Databases included in the Cochrane Library
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)
Cochrane Reviews and Protocols
Editorials
Supplements
Editorial responsibility
Metrics: impact factor; article metrics
Features: MeSH terms; linking Cochrane Reviews to related Cochrane Reviews; browse
options for Cochrane Reviews; other content lists
Access to archived Cochrane Reviews
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is the leading resource for systematic
Page 6/187
reviews in health care. The CDSR includes Cochrane Reviews (the systematic reviews) and
protocols for Cochrane Reviews as well as editorials. The CDSR also has
occasional supplements.
In November 2004, The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group agreed that the Cochrane
Library should continue to be limited to the publication of Cochrane Reviews dealing with human
health issues.
Cochrane Reviews and Protocols
Cochrane Reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health
policy, and are internationally recognised as the highest standard in evidence-based health
care. They may either investigate the effects of interventions for prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation, or alternatively may assess the accuracy of a diagnostic test for a given condition
in a specific patient group and setting. A unique feature of Cochrane Reviews is that they are
living documents in that they are updated with new evidence that emerges. They were
conceived as electronic publications from the outset, and designed to take advantage of
features unique to electronic publishing.
Each systematic review addresses a clearly formulated question; for example: Can antibiotics
help in alleviating the symptoms of a sore throat? All the existing primary research on a topic
that meets certain pre-determined criteria is searched for and collated, and then assessed using
stringent guidelines, to establish whether or not there is conclusive evidence about a specific
treatment.
Each Cochrane Review is a peer reviewed systematic review that has been prepared by a team
of authors and supported by a Cochrane Review Group editorial team in the Collaboration.
Cochrane Reviews are prepared using Review Manager (RevMan) software provided by the
Collaboration, and adhere to a structured methodological approach and format that is described
in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions or Cochrane Handbook for
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews.
Protocols for Cochrane Reviews are peer reviewed articles that describe the rationale for the
review, the objectives, and the methods that will be used to locate, select, and critically appraise
studies, and to collect and analyse data from the included studies.
There are four types of Cochrane Review published in the CDSR: intervention; methodology;
diagnostic test accuracy; and overviews of reviews. Most reviews in the CDSR are intervention
reviews, methodology reviews are prepared by one Cochrane Review Group, and the other two
types are newer additions to the CDSR.
Editorials
Editorials aim to stimulate discussion and ideas around the development of evidence synthesis
to promote good decision-making in clinical care and health policy.
Page 7/187
One to four editorials are published each month. The timing of publication may coincide with the
publication of a linked Cochrane Review or with particular events, such as health awareness
days or The Cochrane Collaboration's 20th anniversary.
Editorials are usually about 800 words in length with about six to eight references, although
longer or shorter editorials may be published at the discretion of the Editor in Chief, David Tovey
([email protected]).
Provenance
Editorials may be solicited or unsolicited, and authorship is not limited to contributors to The
Cochrane Collaboration contributors or by those outside the organisation. The Editor in Chief or
Cochrane Editorial Unit staff may commission editorials linked to Cochrane Reviews of interest
or on topics likely to be of interest to a broad readership. Proposals for editorials are welcome
and should be submitted to the Editor in Chief for consideration.
Editorial process
The Editor in Chief has editorial responsibility for editorials. They are managed, edited, and
published by the Cochrane Editorial Unit. Editorials can be published at any time.
Authors of editorials must declare potential conflicts of interest using the standard ICMJE form
and must complete a licence for publication form.
Feedback on editorials is welcome and may be published as a comment alongside the editorial.
Editorials are indexed in PubMed and are free to access via the Cochrane Library homepage.
Supplements
Since 2009, the Cochrane Colloquium abstracts (for oral presentations and posters) have been
published as a Supplement and, since 2010, Cochrane Methods (ISSN: 2044-4702), the official
annual newsletter for methodological issues within The Cochrane Collaboration, has been
published as an annual Supplement.
Editorial responsibility
Cochrane Reviews are prepared by Cochrane Review Groups, which are led by one or more Coordinating Editors. The Co-ordinating Editors are members of an Editorial Board. The Editor in
Chief oversees the CDSR content.
The Editor in Chief is responsible for the Editorials and oversees the preparation of the
Supplements.
Page 8/187
Metrics
Impact factor
Each year in June, Thomson Reuters publish the impact factors of all journals indexed in the ISI
Journal Citation Report. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) impact factor
describes the ratio of the number of Cochrane Reviews published, for example, during 2010
and 2011 to the number of citations these reviews received in 2012. The CDSR received its first
impact factor in 2007.
Year
Impact factor (IF)
Downloads (where available)
2014
6.032
IF fact sheet
2013
5.939
IF fact sheet | IF and usage report
2012
5.785
IF fact sheet | IF and usage report
2011
5.912
IF fact sheet | IF and usage report
2010
6.186
IF fact sheet | IF and usage report
2009
5.653
IF fact sheet | IF and usage report
2008
5.182
IF fact sheet | ––
2007
4.654
—
Individual Cochrane Review Groups receive impact factor reports and citation analysis reports
prepared by the publishing team at Wiley. The publishing team at Wiley runs Impact Factor
Webinars for Cochrane contributors. Contact Gavin Stewart, Associate Editor, Wiley, for more
information; [email protected], +44 (0)1243 770 686.
The Cochrane Editorial Unit has compiled advice and information (January 2012) for Cochrane
Review Groups about measures aimed at influencing the impact factor of the CDSR.
Article metrics
In 2011, Wiley introduced an article metric for each Cochrane Review. Users can now see
which other articles have cited the Cochrane Review (via a live feed from CrossRef).
Features
MeSH terms
MeSH terms are sourced and added to reviews post-publication by Wiley. On an annual basis,
Wiley downloads the MeSH thesaurus related files from from the National Library of Medicine
(NLM) to build a new MeSH structure, which is introduced to the Cochrane Library.
Page 9/187
Linking Cochrane Reviews to other related Cochrane Reviews
In 2011, Wiley introduced a ‘more content like this’ feature for Cochrane Reviews, which is
built on the topics lists. At the bottom of each Cochrane Review, there is a hyperlink to the
topics list heading under which the Cochrane Review is listed. Clicking on this hyperlink takes
the user to that level of the topics list tree so that the user can view related reviews.
Browse options for Cochrane Reviews
Readers are given the option of browsing Cochrane Reviews through several different lists:
Browse list – as shown on the left-hand side of the Cochrane Library homepage
(prepared by Cochrane – see below)
New Reviews
Updated Reviews
A–Z: all Protocols and Reviews
A–Z: by Cochrane Review Group
Topics by Cochrane Review Group (prepared by Cochrane – see below) Browse
list
All of these are prepared automatically with the exception of the browse list on the homepage of
the Cochrane Library and the topics lists.
The Cochrane Editorial Unit prepares the homepage ‘Browse by topics’ menu. This is a threelevel browse menu for Cochrane Reviews only (excludes protocols) designed to present the
scope of Cochrane Reviews across the landscape of medical specialties and broad healthcare
topics, rather than being restricted to the way that coverage is defined by Review Groups. The
aim is to helping users find relevant reviews. The Browse menu is populated automatically from
the Cochrane Editorial Unit’s own topics list, which is maintained for this purpose. Cochrane
Protocols are tagged appropriately in Archie, often based on the way that CRGs have assigned
the review to their own topics lists, then appear automatically in the browse menu when the
Review is published.
Cochrane Reviews from any Cochrane Review Group can be added to any of the three levels
for the homepage browse list; for example, there are several Cochrane Review Groups working
on cancer, and the reviews are brought together under the top-level ‘Cancer’ heading. This is
in comparison with the topics lists in which the Cochrane Reviews are listed separately by
Cochrane Review Group. A single Cochrane Review can be added to more than one heading;
for example, oral cancers are located under the ‘Cancer’ top level heading and also ‘Dentistry
and oral health’ top level heading. In addition, the browse menu offers top-level headings (e.g.
Child health) that are built on Fields’ topics lists.
Each Cochrane Review Group prepares a topics list that covers the Group’s scope of work.
The five-level topics list can include topics where reviews are in progress or completed, or
topics where a review is desirable. In the former scenario, reviews are linked to the topic. The
Page 10/187
topics lists are updated each time a review is published and are listed under the ‘Topics by
Cochrane Review Group’ browse option on the homepage. Some Fields also maintain topics
lists.
Other content lists for Cochrane Reviews
A range of content lists are available for Cochrane Reviews: New Reviews; Updated Reviews;
A–Z: all Protocols and Reviews; A–Z: by Cochrane Review Group. These are produced by the
publisher using the data included in the XML ZIP file for Cochrane Reviews and are prepared as
part of the production process for the Cochrane Reviews.
Access to archived Cochrane Reviews
All published versions of Cochrane Reviews (including Protocols for Cochrane Reviews) are
stored on The Cochrane Collaboration’s central server, Archie. This also includes versions
published before the launch of Archie in 2005–2006. The published versions stored in Archie
cannot be deleted. Archie also contains versions of draft Cochrane Reviews that are not
published.
Full access to the archive of all published Cochrane Reviews in Archie is available only to a few
individuals in each Cochrane entity, such as Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs), as well as
Archie Super Users and system and data administrators. This access to the archive can help
CRG editorial teams answer queries about previously published versions that are not available
in the public archive through the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (see
below). However, it is at the discretion of the CRG editorial teams as to whether they choose to
provide copies of Cochrane Reviews to people who have asked for them.
Researchers who are proposing to use the archived data for methodological purposes can also
apply for permission for access to all previously published reviews by contacting Jessica
Thomas ([email protected]), Business and Operations Manager at the Cochrane
Informatics and Knowledge Management Department (IKMD). A framework for evaluating such
requests is being developed. If permission is granted, the IKMD can assist in providing these
data, but there may be a cost for this service depending on the complexity of the request.
The CDSR includes an archive of all citation versions of published Cochrane Reviews (including
Protocols) starting from Issue 4, 2003 (www.cochranelibrary.com). Where previous versions of a
Cochrane Review exist in the CDSR, these can be accessed via the ‘Other Versions’ link on
each Cochrane Review.
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) is a bibliographic database that
provides a highly concentrated source of reports of randomized controlled trials. Records
contain the list of authors, the title of the article, the source, volume, issue, page numbers, and,
Page 11/187
in many cases, a summary of the article (abstract). They do not contain the full text of the
article.
Cochrane Groups maintain and update Specialized Registers, which are collections of
controlled trials relevant to the groups. CENTRAL is comprised of these Specialized Registers,
relevant records retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE, and records retrieved through
handsearching (planned manual searching of a journal or conference proceedings to identify all
reports of randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials). The Cochrane Collaboration
contracts a technology company, Metaxis, to merge the records from the sources outlined
above and provide a data feed to the publisher. New and changed data are delivered to the
publisher on a monthly basis.
Each of the Cochrane Review Groups and other entities within the Collaboration that submit a
Specialized Register is responsible for its content. The Editor in Chief oversees CENTRAL, and
Metaxis manages the technical aspects of compiling the database.
CENTRAL is freely available to Cochrane members via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online
(CRSO). The CRSO allows searching of CENTRAL records five to six weeks before they are
available in CENTRAL and can be accessed with an Archie login.
Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR)
The Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) is a database of studies relevant to the methods of
systematic reviews of healthcare and social interventions. The register includes journal articles,
book chapters, conference proceedings, conference abstracts and reports of ongoing
methodological research. Relevant records are identified by the UK Cochrane Centre through
handsearching and sources including MEDLINE.
The register aims to include all published reports of empirical methodological studies that could
be relevant for inclusion in a Cochrane methodology review, along with comparative and
descriptive studies relevant to the conduct of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions.
CMR records contain the title of the article, information on where it was published (bibliographic
details), and, in some cases, a summary of the article. They do not contain the full text of the
article.
Until recently the CMR was produced by the UK Cochrane Centre on behalf of the Cochrane
Methodology Review Group. The CMR is currently under review; further information on the
progress and developments of this review will be updated on the CMR help site. Any queries
about the current status of the CMR should be sent to Jackie Chandler
([email protected]), Methods Co-ordinator, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
About The Cochrane Collaboration
Page 12/187
Groups in The Cochrane Collaboration – Cochrane Review Groups, Methods Groups, Fields,
Cochrane Centres, the Cochrane Editorial Unit, Network for Consumers, Satellites and
Branches, Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department (IKMD), and the
Central Executive Team – use this database to publish information about their purpose, scope,
and activities, as well as contact details. The type of information provided varies by group.
Cochrane Review Groups, for example, provide additional information, including a list of new
reviews, updated reviews, and protocols to be published in the next issue of the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews (alongside the updated version of this article); registered and
vacant titles; names of editors, authors, and peer reviewers; the methods that they use in their
reviews; a glossary of terms which are commonly found in their reviews; and relevant
publications.
Each group is responsible for the information in the article about their group.
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)
The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) contains details of systematic reviews
that evaluate the effects of healthcare interventions and the delivery and organisation of health
services. DARE also contains reviews of the wider determinants of health such as housing,
transport, and social care where these impact directly on health, or have the potential to impact
on health.
Reviews are quality assessed for inclusion making DARE a key resource for busy decisionmakers in both healthcare policy and practice. DARE complements the CDSR by identifying and
including systematic reviews that have not been carried out by The Cochrane Collaboration.
A critical commentary on the reliability of the evidence is provided for reviews of key relevance
to the UK NHS. The records for these reviews contain a summary of the review and a critical
commentary about the overall quality and reliability of the findings. For bibliographic records
where a commentary has not yet been prepared, users can submit a request via the CRD
website: priority is given to UK NHS, public health, and social care services. The commentaries
are written and independently checked by researchers with in-depth knowledge and experience
of systematic review methods.
DARE contains details of all Cochrane Reviews, Protocols for Cochrane Reviews, and other
publications based on Cochrane Reviews. Details of Campbell Reviews (prepared by The
Campbell Collaboration) are included where the interventions evaluated impact directly on
health or have the potential to impact on health.
DARE was produced by the NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the
University of York, UK. NIHR funding to produce DARE ceased at the end of March 2015.
However, the database can still be accessed via the Cochrane Library. Searches of MEDLINE,
Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PubMed were continued until the end of the 2014.
Bibliographic records were published on DARE and NHS EED until 31 March 2015 and included
Page 13/187
in Issue 4, 2015 on the Cochrane Library. This database is also available from the CRD
database website.
Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA)
The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database brings together details of completed and
ongoing health technology assessments from around the world. Database content is supplied
by members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment
(INAHTA) and other HTA organisations internationally. The scope for inclusion is broad,
encompassing any study designated as a health technology assessment by the contributing
organisation. All new content is checked, proof read, and published on the database by the inhouse team at CRD.
Records for published projects contain full bibliographic details and contact information for the
organisation publishing the report. Contributing organisations can also provide brief details of
the authors’ objectives and conclusions if they wish. Links to reports, project pages, and/or
organisation websites are provided wherever possible so that database users can access full
details directly. The HTA database also contains brief details of ongoing HTA projects which are
updated when projects complete. This enables funders and researchers to identify work already
in progress and may help reduce unintended duplication of effort.
Unlike the other CRD databases, DARE and NHS EED, the published records are not critically
assessed. However, where a review or economic evaluation listed in the HTA database has met
the inclusion criteria for DARE or NHS EED and a critical abstract has been written, links to that
abstract are included in the HTA database record.
The HTA database is produced by the NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at
the University of York, UK. This database is also available from the CRD database website.
NHS Economic Evaluation Database
The NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) contains economic evaluations of healthcare
interventions. Economic evaluations are studies in which a comparison of two or more
interventions or care alternatives is undertaken and in which both the costs and outcomes of the
alternatives are examined. This includes cost-benefit analyses, cost-utility analyses, and costeffectiveness analyses.
To assist decision-makers with this increasingly complex and technical literature, critical
commentaries are produced for economic evaluations of key relevance to the UK National
Health Services (NHS). These commentaries contain a brief description of the effectiveness
information on which the economic evidence is based and details of the key components of the
economic evaluation. A critical commentary summarises the overall reliability and
generalisability of the study, and presents any practical implications for the UK NHS.
Page 14/187
For bibliographic records, where a commentary has not yet been prepared, users can submit a
request via the CRD website: priority is given to UK NHS, public health, and social care
services. The commentaries are written and independently checked by health economists with
in-depth knowledge and experience of economic evaluation methods.
NHS EED was produced by the NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the
University of York, UK. NIHR funding to produce NHS EED ceased at the end of March 2015.
However, the database can still be accessed via the Cochrane Library. Searches of MEDLINE,
Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PubMed were continued until the end of the 2014.
Bibliographic records were published on DARE and NHS EED until 31st March 2015 and
included in Issue 4, 2015 in the Cochrane Library.
This database is also available from the CRD database website.
Features
Features aim to increase usage and impact of Cochrane Reviews and to reach new and
different audiences.
In this section:
Special Collections
Cochrane Journal Club
Podcasts for Cochrane Reviews
Smartphone/iPad Applications
Special Collections
The Cochrane Editorial Unit works with colleagues within Cochrane Review Groups to prepare
Special Collections of Cochrane Reviews around a particular health topic, for example obesity
prevention. The Special Collections generally start with an introduction and include descriptions
of, and links to, relevant Cochrane Reviews. Special collections displayed on the homepage of
the Cochrane Library website are freely accessible online.
Cochrane Journal Club
Introduced in 2009, the Cochrane Journal Club is a free, monthly publication. For trainees,
researchers, and clinicians alike, the Cochrane Journal Club aims to provide users with tools on
which to base a journal club session in their institution but it is also used by individuals wishing
to become more familiar with a Cochrane Review. Every Cochrane Journal Club article is
specially selected from new and updated Cochrane Reviews that represent diverse clinical
topics. Each one focuses on a review of special interest, such as practice-changing reviews,
new methodology and evidence-based practice. The content highlights clinical or
methodological issues raised by the Cochrane Review, and incorporates an extended summary
Page 15/187
of the review, a series of questions to stimulate discussion, links to related resources, a vignette
to provide a contextual example for decision making, biographical information on the review
team, a podcast, and a downloadable PowerPoint presentation containing key figures and
tables. There is also an option for users of the Journal Club to submit questions to the authors
of the review.
The Cochrane Journal Club is a collaborative venture between review authors, our publishers,
Professor Mike Clarke (as Podcast and Journal Club editor), Cochrane Informatics and
Knowledge Management Department (IKMD), and the Cochrane Editorial Unit.
Podcasts for Cochrane Reviews
Since 2008 and under the guidance of Professor Mike Clarke, authors of new and updated
Cochrane Reviews have the opportunity to prepare audio podcasts (Evidence Pods) for their
review (currently three to six per month). The podcasts are developed, scripted, and recorded
as a collaboration between Professor Clarke, the Cochrane Review authors, the IKMD and
Cochrane Editorial Unit. Podcasts are located on Cochrane.org and are also freely available on
the Apple store within iTunes. See the section on dissemination to suggest a Cochrane Review
for podcasting.
Smartphone/iPad applications
The free Cochrane Library iPad application features monthly issues of Cochrane Reviews
selected by the Editor in Chief and specifically abridged to provide the best possible display
reading experience. The reviews are enriched with the addition of multimedia content, including
podcasts, videos and slide decks. Further information is available on the Cochrane Library
website.
The smartphone applications from Skyscape feature Cochrane Reviews by Cochrane Review
Group for iPhones, Androids, and Blackberries. Users may subscribe on the Skyscape website.
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is also available for iPad and
smartphones via MedHand – Mobile Libraries.
Cochrane Summaries
Cochrane Summaries provides the general public with a consumer-friendly environment to
consult Cochrane evidence. Free online access is available to Cochrane plain language
summaries, abstracts, and supplemental information, such as patient decision aids, related
news stories, and more detailed statistical tables. Cochrane Summaries can be searched in
several different languages (currently English, Croatian, French, Portuguese, Simplified
Chinese, and Spanish), so that the user can utilise Cochrane evidence in their primary
language.
Page 16/187
Derivative products
Derivative products are defined as new products developed jointly by Cochrane (via its
"Innovations" Trading Company) and the Publisher (John Wiley & Sons Ltd) that are based
upon or include material from the Cochrane Library or related content and have been developed
or modified in such a way as to generate new intellectual property.
Cochrane and Wiley will evaluate proposals for derivative publications including journals and
spin-off libraries that fulfil the following criteria:
Excellent stand-alone product with a robust business plan that generates revenues for
the Cochrane entity and overall profit
Increases the use and application of the Cochrane Library or related content by one or
more stakeholder groups.
High-quality product that enhances the brand of the Cochrane Library.
Product complements our sales strategy for the Cochrane Library.
Sufficient ‘added value’ in terms of content compared with that in the
Cochrane Library that it warrants separate publication.
A potential derivative product will only be considered for publication with a recommendation
from, and a comprehensive business plan approved by, the Publishing Management Team. The
decision whether to proceed with the publication of a derivative product will rest solely with
Cochrane.
The contract between Cochrane and Wiley gives Wiley first option to publish derivative products
from the Cochrane Library. If Wiley refuses this option Cochrane will be free to use or exploit
such proposal with a third party during the term provided that the third party obtains from Wiley
a non-exclusive licence. Wiley will, in consultation with the Management Team, apply a
commercially reasonable fee for such a licence.
Proposals for derivative products are evaluated carefully by Cochrane Innovations and Wiley
using a Stage-Gate approach, and in all instances a detailed business case will be required.
If anyone has an idea for a derivative product, they should contact Lorne Becker, Director of
Cochrane Innovations ([email protected]), or Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, Publisher, The
Cochrane Library, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West
Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK (Tel +44 (0)1243 770693; Fax +44 (0)1243 770460; E-mail
[email protected]).
Cochrane Clinical Answers
Cochrane Clinical Answers (cochraneclinicalanswers.com/) is a point-of-care clinical support
tool designed to mimic the way health professionals gather information. The product distils highquality evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews into practical answers to common clinical
Page 17/187
questions. New Clinical Answers are continually added to ensure broad coverage across a
range of medical topics. Cochrane Clinical Answers are written by a team of Associate Editors,
who are all practising clinicians or medical educators.
Cochrane–Wiley Book Series
This is a series of printed and web-based books developed by Cochrane contributors on various
aspects of health care and systematic review methodology, published as ‘Cochrane’ titles. The
Cochrane–Wiley Book Series thus aims to improve the accessibility and usefulness of Cochrane
output to specific audiences.
This series is currently under review. However if you would like to discuss a book proposal
please contact either David Tovey, Editor in Chief of the Cochrane
Library ([email protected]) or Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, Publisher, Cochrane
Library ([email protected]). Proposals should also have been discussed in advance with
any relevant Cochrane Review Groups.
Journals: Evidence-Based Child Health (EBCH); and Journal of
Evidence-Based Medicine (JEBM)
Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal is published bi-monthly, and is
edited by the paediatric leadership within the Cochrane Child Health Field. The aim of the
journal is to allow readers to inform their clinical decision-making and policy development with
the highest quality research evidence available. The journal includes excerpts, overviews of
reviews, and commentaries on Cochrane Reviews.
The Journal of Evidence Based Medicine publishes reports of systematic reviews and
randomized trials as well as articles on methods for the evaluation of health care and the use of
evidence in decision-making. The journal also publishes essays about topics and people. The
journal aims to be of relevance and interest to people inside and outside of China, and to guide
decisions and practices in healthcare.
Partnership products
Partnership products are developed with a partner of the Collaboration based upon or including
material from The Cochrane Library and related content. They are developed with a view to
disseminating information to the partner’s audiences and users, and not primarily with a view to
being income-generating.
In this section:
La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus
Page 18/187
WHO Reproductive Health Library (RHL)
WHO e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA)
La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus
La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus is a Spanish language version of The Cochrane Library. It is
prepared by the Iboamerican Cochrane Centre and is published by Update Software under
licence from Wiley. La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus includes Spanish translations of Cochrane
Reviews from theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. It also includes content not
available in The Cochrane Library:
Full reports of Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias iberoamericanas.
The summaries of the thematic web of the back of the Fundación Kovacs.
The articles published in the journal Gestión Clínica y Sanitaria by the Fundación
Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud.
The articles published in the journal Evidencias en Pediatría.
The articles published in the journal Evidencias en Atención Primaria.
The database of Iberoamerican clinical trials.
Information about The Cochrane Collaboration.
A manual on the methodology of the reviews.
A glossary of methodological terms.
Other information of interest.
La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus also includes access to the original English-language versions of
the other databases included in The Cochrane Library: CENTRAL; CMR; DARE; HTA; and the
NHS Economic Evaluation Database.
WHO Reproductive Health Library (RHL)
The WHO Reproductive Health Library (RHL) is an electronic review journal published by the
Department of Reproductive Health and Research at WHO. The RHL uses Cochrane Reviews
to present practical actions for clinicians and policy-makers in order to improve health
outcomes, especially in developing countries.
WHO e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA)
Produced in partnership between the WHO and The Cochrane Collaboration, the e-Library of
Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA) is an online library of evidence-informed guidelines for
nutrition interventions.
Editorial team
Editor in Chief
Page 19/187
Dr David Tovey is the first Editor in Chief of the Cochrane Library (since 2009). Dr Tovey heads
Cochrane’s central editorial team, the Cochrane Editorial Unit, and is supported by a team of
editors and specialist staff.
Information relating to the Editor in Chief’s remit and responsibilities is available. Further
information about the Cochrane Editorial Unit, including contact details, is available on the
Cochrane Editorial Unit website {link}.
Co-ordinating Editors’ Board
The Co-ordinating Editors’ Board is the decision-making body for the Co-ordinating Editors.
The Board meets twice each year usually around March/April and September/October. Some
Cochrane Review Groups have more than one Co-ordinating Editor, or a Deputy Co-ordinating
Editor. All Co-ordinating Editors may attend the Board meetings, but each Cochrane Review
Group has one vote.
Cochrane Review Groups
Cochrane Review Groups are made up of people who prepare, maintain, and update Cochrane
Reviews, and people who support them in this process. Each CRG has an editorial base where
a small team of people supports the production of Cochrane Reviews, including a Co-ordinating
Editor, Managing Editor, and Trials Search Co-ordinator. Each Cochrane Review Group also
has a team of editors (similar to an editorial board) that supports the Co-ordinating Editor(s) and
the development of the Cochrane Reviews. CRGs focus on particular areas of health, for
example, Breast Cancer, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Infectious Diseases, Multiple Sclerosis, or
Schizophrenia.
There are currently 52 Cochrane Review Groups located across the globe. Details about each
Cochrane Review Group are available.
Specific information on how to set up a Cochrane Review Group and the responsibilities of
people within CRGs is available in the Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual. Editorial
responsibilities of Cochrane Review Groups are also available in the Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions (section 2.3.7).
The Cochrane Library Oversight Committee
The Cochrane Library Oversight Committee helps avoid difficulties that may arise from the dual
roles of the Editor in Chief (i.e. accurately inform and educate readers while protecting and
strengthening the integrity of the journal). Roles of Oversight Committee typically include the
following, to:
Serve as a forum for discussion and deliberation of contentious or potentially
contentious issues
Page 20/187
Provide an impartial mechanism for review of the performance of the Editor in Chief
Have a major role in the case of any proposed dismissal of the Editor in Chief
Membership of the committee typically includes individuals who are not members of the board
or otherwise part of the governance structures of the owner. These individuals are typically high
profile members of one of the journal’s stakeholdergroups. For a complete description of the
Oversight Committee's remit, accountability, appointment and membership, see section 1.1.2.1
of The Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual.
Publisher
The Cochrane Collaboration has partnered with John Wiley & Sons, Ltd since 2003. Contact
details for the Wiley team are available in the Appendix 2 of the Cochrane Organisational Policy
Manual.
The Cochrane Library complaints procedure
This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, processes or actions of staff,
contributors or position-holders of Cochrane involved in the publication or content of
the Cochrane Library. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity for improvement,
and we aim to respond efficiently and constructively. We define complaints as an expression of
unhappiness about a failure of process or an important misjudgement. The Editor in Chief of the
Cochrane Library is responsible for this complaints procedure and will respond to queries about
it.
Comment or complaint?
If you wish to comment on the content of a Cochrane Review or Protocol, please follow our
guidance on Submitting comments on Cochrane Reviews. You can send your comment by
clicking on the ‘Submit Comments’ button in the Article Tools menu.
The complaint process exists in parallel with the 'comments' process and may be used either if
you believe that the comment is of such a serious nature that urgent corrective action is
warranted, or if you believe that the usual process has not been satisfactorily managed or
resolved.
How to complain
Complaints relating to the Cochrane Library in general or the staff or actions of the Cochrane
Editorial Unit should be referred directly to the Editor in Chief. Complaints may be made by
email, phone or letter.
Page 21/187
Dr David Tovey
Editor in Chief, Cochrane Library
Cochrane Editorial Unit
St Albans House
57-59 Haymarket
London SW1Y 4QX
UK
+44 (0)20 7183 7503
[email protected]
If the complainant is not content with the response, or if the complaint relates to the conduct of
the Editor in Chief, the complainant can ask for the complaint to be referred to the Cochrane
Library Oversight Committee via its Chair.
Complaints that refer to The Cochrane Library databases that are produced by the Centre for
Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) will be redirected to the relevant individuals at the CRD.
Alternatively, complaints can be made directly to the CRD:
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK
+44 (0)1904 321040
[email protected]
How we deal with complaints
All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days. If possible a definitive response
will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within two
weeks. Further interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved.
Complainants who remain unhappy after this procedure has run its course may consider
referring the matter to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Cochrane Library and
all Cochrane Review Groups are members of COPE (See section on COPE), which publishes a
code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. COPE will consider complaints
against journals only after the journal's own complaints procedures have been exhausted.
Publishing model
Overview of access options for the Cochrane Library
Cochrane aspires to prepare and publish high-quality research aimed at informing decisionmaking globally and to make this available to readers via one-click access. Table 1 outlines the
Page 22/187
different ways that readers can access the Cochrane Library and particularly full text access to
Cochrane Reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
Table 1. Overview of access options for the Cochrane Library
Access option
Type
Detail
Paid
National ‘provision’
Free online access for residents
through a national funded licence;
see
www.cochranelibrary.com/help/acce
ss-options-for-cochrane-library.html
Subscriptions
Institutional or personal
Pay per view
USD $35 plus VAT (if applicable)
Time-limited country/region access
Via Evidence Aid
One-click free access
One-click free access provided by IP
recognition (no individual login).
Based on publisher’s annual review
of eligible countries in Group A and
B for the HINARI Access to
Research in Health Programme
(www.who.int/hinari/eligibility). The
countries listed
on
www.cochranelibrary.com/help/acce
ss-options-for-cochrane-library.html
have access until January 2016.
Access to Research
through HINARI (
www.who.int/hinari/en/)
Health InterNetwork Access to
Research Initiative (HINARI), a
partnership led by WHO. Access
through a local, not-for-profit
institution. Charge may apply
dependent on countries' eligibility.
Countries classified according to the
Band 1 and Band 2 grouping, based
on the gross national income per
capita from the World Bank's list of
low-income countries and other data.
International Network for the
INASP/PERii (www.inasp.info)
Availability of Scientific Publications'
(INASP) Programme for the
Enhancement of Research
Information (PERii). Low-cost access
provided to named research
organizations in selected INASP
partner countries
Free
Reduced cost
Page 23/187
Open
Access to Research
through HINARI (
www.who.int/hinari/en/)
See above
‘Gold’ open access
CDSR: see section
‘Green’ open access
CDSR: see section
*www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.HTML
Open access
In this section:
Gold open access: immediate open access upon payment of an article publication
charge
How and at what stage in the article’s development do I pay for immediate open
access?
Article publication charge (APC)
Licence for publication
Archiving articles in repositories
Waivers and discounts
Green open access: publication via the ‘standard’ model, but with free access to the full
article 12 months after publication
Licence for publication form
How will open access articles appear in the CDSR?
What if my funder mandates different criteria for open access than those outlined
above?
How does content published in the CDSR fit on the ‘How open is it’ scale?
Open access webinar
Open access
On 1 February 2013, open-access options were introduced for the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Authors can choose one of two options for publishing their
articles:
Gold open access: immediate open access upon payment of an article publication
charge fee.
Green open access: publication via the ‘standard’ model, with free access to the full
Page 24/187
article 12 months after publication.
Gold open access: immediate open access upon payment of an article publication
charge
Via our publisher’s open access service, Online Open, authors and their funders have the
option to fund individual articles, or groups of articles, to enable them to be published on an
open access basis immediately.
How and at what stage in the article’s development do I pay for immediate open access?
Contact your Managing Editor to discuss open access as early as possible and before the
authors sign the licence for publication form. (Further information for Managing Editors.)
Article publication charge (APC)
The APC will depend on the status of the Cochrane Review; see Table 1.
Table 1. Article publication charge (APC)
Cochrane Review status
APC in US dollars
Cochrane Review or Update
$5000
Cochrane Review if APC paid for Protocol
$2500
Cochrane Review Update if APC paid for Cochrane
Review
$2500
Protocol
$2500
The version of the article that will be open access immediately is the new citation version, as
identified by the unique digital object identifier (DOI). If gold open access is purchased for an
update, the previous versions of the review (as shown in the “Other versions” tab) will be made
free to view as per green open access. Only the gold open access version will receive the
benefits of gold open access.
Licence for publication
Authors paying an APC for gold open access will sign a licence for publication form that reflects
the open access nature of the article (see Licence for publication: open access). Authors retain
copyright and then (1) grant The Cochrane Collaboration exclusive rights of copyright in and to
the article; and (2) choose between selecting a CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-ND licence (see Table
2). If authors are funded by RCUK or Wellcome Trust a CC-BY licence is available on request.
Table 2. Description of gold open access licences
Type of licence
Description
Page 25/187
“This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and althou
CC-BY-NC
(Attribution, non-commercial) their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to licen
their derivative works on the same terms.”
“This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download
CC-BY-NC-ND
(Attribution, non-commercial, works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in a
way or use them commercially.”
no derivatives )
Source: creativecommons.org/licenses/ (accessed 12 March 2012).
Archiving articles in repositories
Gold open access articles will normally be deposited automatically in PubMedCentral, and other
repositories as determined by funder mandates, on behalf of the authors. Authors retain the
right to deposit the article in other repositories of their choice or as required by their funder. A
PDF of the final version, as specified by the Publisher, will be deposited.
Waivers and discounts
Authors from HINARI A and B countries (www.who.int/hinari/eligibility/en/) who are the first
author of the Cochrane Review, Protocol, or Update are eligible for a waiver for the APC,
provided funding for the Cochrane Review does not include funds for the APC. Qualifying
authors should contact their Managing Editor before signing the licence for publication form.
(Further information for Managing Editors.)
Funders should contact Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert ([email protected]) to discuss discounts,
such as the block purchase of APCs.
Green open access: publication via the ‘standard’ model, but with free access to the full
article 12 months after publication
Cochrane Protocols and Reviews (including updates) published in the CDSR, with the exception
of gold open access articles (see above), will be made freely available in the CDSR 12 months
after publication. This will happen automatically and there is no charge for this.
This applies only to those versions published with a new citation on or after 1 February 2013. If,
for example, a Cochrane Review update is published on 1 February 2013, on 1 February 2014
the Cochrane Review will be free to view. However, earlier versions, including the Protocol and
first version of the Cochrane Review will not be free to view.
Licence for publication form
Authors continue to retain copyright and, as stated in the licence for publication form, retain the
rights, shown in Table 3 and updated to incorporate the right in relation to repositories, in return
for granting The Cochrane Collaboration an exclusive licence for publication.
Page 26/187
Table 3. Author rights in licence for publication form
The right to post the Protocol or Review as an electronic file on the author’s own
website and/or the author’s institution’s intranet, using the PDF version of the Review
available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
The right to post a PDF of the final version, as specified by the Publisher, in an
institutional repository or any repository mandated by the author’s funder, such as
PubMedCentral, 12 months after publication.
The right to photocopy or to transmit online or to download, print out, and distribute a
reasonable number of copies of the published Protocol or Review in whole or in part, for
the author’s personal or professional use including teaching purposes, but not for
commercial purposes.
The right to re-publish without charge all or part of any published Protocol or Review
authored or contributed to by the author in a book written or edited by the author.
The right to use selected figures and tables, and selected text, including the abstract
and/or plain language summary from the Protocol or Review, for the author’s own
teaching purposes.
How will open access articles appear in the CDSR?
Articles with gold open access will be identified in the CDSR with a logo
describing the selected copyright licence.
and through text
Articles with green open access will be free to access in the CDSR after 12 months and will be
identified by a logo
.
What if my funder mandates different criteria for open access than those
outlined above?
Wiley will respect funder mandates and implement the requirements. Contact Deborah
Pentesco-Gilbert ([email protected]) for queries.
Authors funded by Research Councils UK (RCUK) and The Wellcome Trust should note that
both funders have new open access policies effective from 1 April 2013. These policies state
that to be compliant, journals must offer a “pay to publish” (gold OA) option. When an article
publication charge is paid the policies also mandate the use of the CC-BY license. The CC-BY
license allows others to modify, build upon and/or distribute the licensed work (including for
commercial purposes) as long as the original author is credited.
A promotional video was created to help authors understand the new UK funder mandates and
Wiley’s compliance.
Page 27/187
How does content published in the CDSR fit on the ‘How open is it’ scale?
In 2012, the Public Library of Science (PLOS), The Scholarly Publishing and Academic
Resources Coalition (SPARC), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
(OASPA) developed the “How open is it?” guide that shows the spectrum between open
access and closed access; see www.plos.org/about/open-access/howopenisit/. Figure 1 shows
where the CDSR fits onto this open-access spectrum.
Machine readability is one of the core components included in the guide. Contact Deborah
Pentesco-Gilbert ([email protected]) to discuss permission to crawl or access the article fulltext, metadata, and citations, and the use of an API for this purpose.
Figure 1. How open is it? Gold and green access in the CDSR
Open access webinar
Listen to a webinar recorded in April 2014: Introduction to open access with Cochrane.
Including Cochrane Reviews and Protocols in PubMed Central
PubMed Central (PMC) is a “free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal
literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM)”.
There are two PMC International centres, Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) and PMC
Canada. PMC International “is a collaborative effort between NIH and NLM, the publishers
whose journal content makes up the PMC archive, and organizations in other countries that
share NIH's and NLM's interest in archiving life sciences literature”
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/pmci/).
Cochrane Reviews and Protocols may be submitted and included in one or more than one of
Page 28/187
the PMC archives through one of the following routes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research
UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants
Gold open access selected for the Cochrane Review or Protocol
Author submits Cochrane Review or Protocol to PMC as part of the green open access
option
1. USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research
Cochrane Reviews that are prepared by one or more authors with USA National Institutes of
Health (NIH) funding must be submitted to PMC as part of the funding requirements; see details
here. Wiley assists with the submission of NIH-funded reviews to PMC, but following steps
occur:
NIH-funded authors must tick the box in the licence for publication form.
Wiley is alerted that a NIH-funded review needs to be submitted to PMC.
Wiley sends the submission to the NIH platform and processing and approval begins.
NIH sends an email to the contact author requesting approval for the submission of the
review to NIH and PMC.
Contact author approves the submission.
NIH puts the article through quality assurance (removing duplications etc).
NIH indexes the article.
NIH includes the Cochrane Review in the PMC.
Please note that it is the contact author’s responsibility to provide approval to the NIH to include
the article in the PMC. If the contact author doe not provide authorisation then the NIH will not
submit to PMC.
2. UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme
Grants
Cochrane Protocols and Reviews prepared as part of the 2007 and 2010 National Institute for
Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants, and published by 31 January 2013, must be
submitted to Europe PMC as part of the NIHR open access policy. The Cochrane Editorial Unit
will approve the submission of each individual article to Europe PMC against the list of protocols
and reviews provided by the NIHR.
Cochrane Protocols and Reviews prepared as part of the 2013 NIHR Programme Grants, in
addition to Cochrane Protocols and Reviews published after 1 February 2014 from the 2007
and 2010 NIHR Programme Grants, will follow the usual green open access policy. This allows
the author team to deposit the protocol or review into Europe PMC 12 months after publication
in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
All Cochrane Protocols and Reviews prepared as part of a NIHR Programme Grant must
Page 29/187
include an entry in the ‘External Sources of Support’ section with the following as a minimum:
Name: National Institute for Health Research, UK
Description: [grant name], [grant number]
3. Gold open access selected for the Cochrane Review or Protocol
If an author selects gold open access (by paying the article publishing charge or is eligible for a
waiver), then Wiley will arrange for the Cochrane Review or Protocol to be submitted to PMC.
The following steps occur:
Wiley sends the submission to the NIH platform and processing and approval begins.
NIH sends an email to the contact author requesting approval for the submission of the
review to NIH and PMC.
Contact author approves the submission.
NIH puts the article through quality assurance (removing duplications etc).
NIH indexes the article.
NIH includes the Cochrane Review in the PMC.
Please note that it is the contact author’s responsibility to provide authorisation to the NIH to
include the article in the PMC. If the contact author does not provide authorisation then the NIH
will not submit to PMC.
4. Author submits Cochrane Review or Protocol to PMC as part of
the green open access option
Cochrane Reviews and Protocols published on or after 1 February 2013 meet the green open
access policy, which means that they will become free to view in the CDSR after 12 months and
can be included in an institutional repository or any repository mandated by the author’s funder,
such as PMC, 12 months after publication.
Authors who wish to submit a copy of their Cochrane Review or Protocol to PMC need to follow
the instructions on the PMC website: “Method C: Deposit the final peer-reviewed manuscript in
PubMed Central yourself via the NIH Manuscript Submission System (NIHMS)”.
Access to archived Cochrane Reviews
For information on access to archived Cochrane Reviews, see the relevant section of this
resource.
Complimentary access to the Cochrane Library
Page 30/187
For eligible Cochrane members and groups
Contact authors of Cochrane Reviews
Eligibility criteria
The Contact Person for each published Cochrane Review will receive a complimentary
subscription to the Cochrane Library (either online or a quarterly DVD) as long as their
Cochrane Review is updated at least every two years. The exact expiry date of the Contact
Person's subscription is two and a half years from the date when the published review was last
'assessed as up to date'. This does not apply to Protocols.
Setting up a complimentary subscription
The Contact Person for each Cochrane Review will receive an automated notification from
Archie with details on how to set up their complimentary subscription once all the licence for
publication forms for the review have been signed. Complimentary access will start once the
Cochrane Review has been published. Further information is available in Archie.
Cochrane Groups
Each Cochrane entity is entitled to at least one complimentary subscription.
Activating complimentary subscriptions
People need to have their complimentary subscription activated before the next steps; see
Archie help file for instructions on how to activate a complimentary subscription. Contact authors
of Cochrane Reviews can access their complimentary subscription as soon as all co-authors
have signed the licence for publication form for the Cochrane Review.
From 20 August 2013 onwards, people with activated complimentary access need to login to
Archie and click on the link to the Cochrane Library at the top of the page. This takes the user
directly to the Cochrane Library. These steps need to be followed each time the person wishes
to gain full access to the Cochrane Library.
People with complimentary subscriptions activated before August 2013
The process described above will replace a system set up before the roll out of the continuous
publishing model for Cochrane Reviews in June 2013. In brief, eligible people were sent a
unique author ID to enable them to login to the Cochrane Library via the Wiley publisher
platform. Logins were set up approximately every two weeks meaning that there were delays
between the publication of a Cochrane Review and when the contact author could access the
Cochrane Library. The new system (from August 2013) allows for immediate access to the
Cochrane Library.
Page 31/187
People using the unique author ID from Wiley will be contacted individually to explain the
change and provide instructions on how to move over to the Archie-enabled system (see above)
by November 2013.
Donating complimentary subscriptions
Contact Persons for Cochrane Reviews or other people or entities with a complimentary
subscription are able to donate their complimentary subscription to someone else with an entry
in Archie.
For journalists
To promote visibility of the Cochrane Library, journalists may also request complimentary
access to the Cochrane Library; see www.thecochranelibrary.com/Media or information about
dissemination (press release) for more information.
Complimentary access will start once the Cochrane Review has been published.
Advertising
Cochrane’s products, including the Cochrane Library, and websites do not publish any unpaid
or paid-for advertising. They will link to Cochrane or partner products, events, or initiatives, and
may announce scientific publications and conferences that are closely related to Cochrane's
main objectives.
Readability
Readability refers to how well Cochrane Reviews can be read and understood by users of the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). It is a part of the mission and a basic
principle of Cochrane to promote the accessibility (readability) of Cochrane Reviews of the
effects of healthcare interventions to anyone wanting to make a decision about health care.
Cochrane Reviews should be written so that they are easy to read and understand by someone
with a basic sense of the topic who may not necessarily be an expert in the area. Some
explanation of terms and concepts is likely to be helpful, and may be essential. Simplicity and
clarity are also vital to readability.
Translation
Translation
Page 32/187
Translations of Cochrane content are a high priority for Cochrane. The policies and procedures
for translations are currently being discussed and reviewed, and will be added to this location
when completed. In the meantime, if you have queries related to translations or would like to
translate Cochrane Reviews, or content from the Cochrane Library or other related content,
please contact Juliane Ried ([email protected]) at Cochrane.
Permission to translate Cochrane Reviews or other content in the Cochrane
Library
If you would like to translate material from the Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Reviews),
please contact Juliane Ried ([email protected]) at Cochrane.
Permission to translate books in the Cochrane–Wiley Book Series
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
The policies and procedures for translations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews
of Interventions are currently being discussed and reviewed, and will be added to this location
when completed. In the meantime, if you have queries related to translations or would like to
translate portions or entirety of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions, please contact Jackie Chandler ([email protected]) at Cochrane.
Other books in the Cochrane–Wiley Book Series
For other books in the Cochrane–Wiley book series, please contact Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert
([email protected]) at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Translation projects
This list includes the Cochrane translation projects that we are aware of, and that are supported
by our Translations Co-ordinator and our publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. It may not cover all
existing Cochrane content translations.
Languages are listed in alphabetical order. The numbers of translation are rounded and
accurate as of June 2015; not all translations are up-to-date because Cochrane Reviews are
updated regularly.
If you are interested in contributing translations in any of the listed languages, you can email the
contact person directly. For any other languages, please email Juliane Ried, Cochrane's
Translation Co-ordinator: [email protected].
Languag
Contact
Project details
Page 33/187
e
Arabic
Ashraf Nabhan (ashraf.na
[email protected])
Chinese,
Simplifie
d
Chinese,
Tradition
al
In planning stage
In planning stage
Daniel Lo
Project start: 2013
([email protected]),
Center for EvidenceBased Medicine, College
Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
of Medicine, Taipei
Medical University, Taiwan
Priority setting: Selection
relevant to regional context
Completed translations: 174
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Translation process:
Professional translators,
validation by content experts
Funding: Taiwan Center for
Evidence-Based Medicine
Croatian
Livia Puljak
([email protected]),
Irena Zakarija-Grkovic (iza
[email protected])
, Dalibora Behmen (dalibor
[email protected]),
Cochrane Croatia
Project start: 2013
Scope: PLS*
Priority setting: Consultation
with patient associations, top
accessed and downloaded
Reviews
Published translations: 768
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Page 34/187
Translation process:
Translation by volunteers
(mainly medical students),
editing by Cochrane staff
Funding: Grant under the
Croatian 'Popularisation of
Science' programme
French
Hanna Martikainen (hanna Project start: 2011
[email protected])
, French Cochrane Centre Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
Priority setting: New and
updated Reviews, funder
priorities, advisory board
priorities
Published translations: 4579
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Translation process:
• 2011-2013: Two
professional translation
companies working with
computer-aided software,
editing by volunteer content
and methods experts
• 2013 onwards: Cochrane
trained machine translation
software, editing by volunteer
content and methods experts
Funding: Canadian Institute
of Research Health, three
Quebec government
institutes, French Ministry of
Health
German
Erik von Elm
([email protected]),
Flatz Aline
([email protected]),
Project start: 2014
Scope: PLS*
Page 35/187
Cochrane Switzerland;
Ingrid Tows
([email protected])
Priority setting: Public health,
physiotherapy
Published translations: 347
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Translation
process: Translation and
editing by volunteer content,
methods and language
experts
Funding: none
Hindi
In planning stage
Indonesi
an
Detty Nurdiati
([email protected]),
Cochrane Indonesia
In planning stage
Japanes
e
Tang Wentao ([email protected]), MINDS
(Japan Medical
Information Network
Distribution Service)
Project start: 2011
Scope: Abstracts; more
recently also PLS*
Priority setting: Selection
relevant to Japanese
guidelines
Published translations: 940
Publication: MINDS website
and Cochrane.org
Page 36/187
Translation process:
Professional translation,
editing by content experts
Funding: MINDS
Korean
Malay
Kun Hyung Kim
([email protected]),
Korean Medicine
Hospital, Pusan National
University
Published translations: 22
Publication: CDSR
and Cochrane.org
Teguh Haryo Sasongko
Published translations: 33
([email protected])
, University Sains
Publication: CDSR
Malaysia
and Cochrane.org
Persian
In planning stage
Polish
In planning stage
Portugue
se
Regina Torloni
([email protected]),
Brazilian Cochrane
Centre; Regina El Dib
([email protected]),
UNESP
Project start: 2013
Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
Priority setting: Selection of
interest to Brazil and the
wider Portuguese speaking
world
Completed translations: 228
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Translation
process: Translation and
editing by volunteer content,
methods and language
experts (partly students)
Page 37/187
Funding: none
Russian
Lilia Ziganshina,
[email protected], Kazan
University (affiliated to
Nordic Cochrane Centre)
Project start: 2014
Scope: PLS*
Priority setting: Selection
relevant to regional context,
Completed translations: 393
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Translation process:
Translation and editing by
volunteer content and
methods experts
Funding: none
Spanish
Salomé Planas
([email protected]),
Iberoamerican Cochrane
Network
Project start: 1998
Scope: Comprehensive
translation programme of the
entire CDSR and other
resources, including:
• CDSR; initially translating
the entire review; currently,
due to reduced funding a
shortened format of the
review, abstracts and PLS;
• Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of
Interventions, Version 5.1.0;
Page 38/187
• MECIR, Standards for the
conduct and reporting of new
Cochrane Intervention
Reviews 2012;
• Selected podcasts;
• Cochrane Evidence Aid Resources for the
earthquakes in Haiti and Chile
(March 2010).
Priority setting: New and
updated Reviews
Completed translations: 5858
abstracts, PLS
Publication: Biblioteca
Cochrane Plus (via Update
Software); Cochrane.org
Translation process:
Computer-aided software,
validation by content and
methods experts
Funding: Spanish Ministry of
Health
Tamil
Published translations: 179
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane.org
Thai
In planning stage
Urdu
In planning stage
Arabic,
Chinese,
French,
Russian,
Spanish
World Health Organization
(WHO)
Project start: unknown
Scope: Abstracts
Priority setting: WHO
Page 39/187
Reproductive Health Library
(not all content for all
languages)
Completed translations:
unknown
Publication:
http://apps.who.int/rhl/ru/
index.html
Translation process:
Professional translation
companies or individuals,
depending on the language,
all translation teams use
computer aided software
(TRADOS)
Funding: WHO
PAST PROJECTS
Languag
e
Contact
Project details
Portugue
se
Brazilian Cochrane Centre
Project duration: unknown
Scope: Abstracts
Priority setting: unknown
Completed translations: 650
(now all outdated)
Publication:
• The Cochrane Library for
Latin America and Caribbean
Page 40/187
• Brazilian Cochrane Centre
website
• Brazilian Cochrane
Consumer website
Translation process: unknown
Funding: unknown
Tradition
al
Chinese
Center for EvidenceProject duration: 2008-2011
Based Medicine, College
of Medicine, Taipei
Medical University, Taiwan Scope: Abstracts
Priority setting: unknown
Published translations: 3600
(largely outdated)
Publication: CDSR and
Cochrane Summaries
Translation process:
Professional translators,
editing by content experts
Funding: Center for EvidenceBased Medicine, Taiwan
French
Back Group
Project duration: 2010-2011
Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
Priority setting: Back Group
Reviews; taken over by
French Cochrane Centre, with
editing supported by Back
Group
Page 41/187
Completed translations:
unknown
Publication: unknown
Translation process: unknown
Funding: unknown
French
Center for the
Development of Best
Practices in Health,
Cameroon;
Infectious Diseases Group
Project duration: 2012
Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
Priority setting: Selected
Reviews relevant to their
region; taken over by French
Cochrane Centre, with editing
supported by Cameroon
group
Completed translations:
unknown
Publication: unknown
Translation process: unknown
Funding: unknown
French
Musculoskeletal Group
Project duration: 2010-2011
Scope: PLS*
Priority setting:
Musculoskeletal Group
Reviews published in 2010;
taken over by French
Cochrane Centre, with editing
Page 42/187
supported by Musculoskeletal
Group
Completed translations:
unknown
Publication: unknown
Translation process: unknown
Funding: unknown
French
Oral Health Group, French Project duration: unknown
representatives
Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
Priority setting: Oral Health
Group Reviews; taken over
by French Cochrane Centre,
with editing supported by this
group
Completed translations:
unknown
Publication: unknown
Translation process: unknown
Funding: unknown
French
UGPD Group
Project duration: 2010-2011
Scope: mainly PLS*, some
abstracts
Page 43/187
Priority setting: UGPD Group
Reviews; taken over by
French Cochrane Centre, with
editing supported by UGPD
Group
Completed translations:
unknown
Publication: unknown
Translation process: unknown
Funding: unknown
German
German Cochrane Centre
Project start: 2004-2007
Scope:all translations
outdated
Priority setting: unknown
Completed translations: 700
(now all outdated)
Publication: Cochrane
Summaries
Translation process:
Professional translators,
editing by volunteer content
and methods experts
Funding: unknown
Simplifie
d
Chinese
China Effective Health
Care Network/ Cochrane
Infectious Diseases Group
Project duration: 2012
Scope: Abstracts and PLS*
Page 44/187
Priority setting: Infectious
Diseases Group Reviews
Completed translations: 100
(pilot project with limited
scope)
Publication: Cochrane
Summaries
Translation
process: Character
conversion based on existing
Traditional Chinese
translations, editing by
content and methods experts
Funding: Cochrane Infectious
Diseases Group
*PLS = Plain language summary
patientAccess
The Cochrane Library publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, is taking part in patientAccess, an
initiative that provides patients and their caregivers with low-cost access to peer-reviewed
research articles. patientAccess is a collaborative project with selected medical scholarly
publishers, the Professional/Scholarly Publishing (PSP) Division of the Association of American
Publishers, the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM),
and the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).
patientAccess allows a patient or their caregiver to have access to a Cochrane Review in
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), even if they do not have access
through other means (such as through a subscription or national provision). In this case, the
patient or their caregiver can select the patientAccess option that will appear on the screen
when the user tries to access the full text of an article. The patient or their caregiver registers
and pays a processing fee of USD $3.50 plus any applicable local taxes (levied by the
Copyright Clearance Center, not Wiley or Cochrane) rather than the normal article fee or a
subscription. The entire research paper is then emailed to the requestor. The patients and their
caregivers can then print out the full article for their own use, or to bring to their healthcare
professional. If the person’s interest does not qualify for patientAccess, articles are available to
Page 45/187
researchers and others via subscriber access or purchase.
Further details and information about restrictions are available on Wiley's patientAccess page.
Cochrane Review development
Cochrane Handbooks
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that
describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on
the effects of healthcare interventions.
This handbook is available to browse online for free and a hard copy is available to purchase.
Members of The Cochrane Collaboration can download individual PDF versions of the
handbook chapters via Archie login.
Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews
A Cochrane handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews is in development. Completed
chapters are available on the Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group website.
Editorial process
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
Registering titles
Registering titles for new Cochrane Reviews.
Co-registration of titles with the Campbell Collaboration.
Registering titles for new Cochrane Reviews
All proposed Cochrane Reviews must be agreed with the relevant Cochrane Review Group and
registered as titles with that Cochrane Review Group. This process is important to prevent
Page 46/187
duplication of effort and also to make sure the topic is appropriate for a Cochrane Review and
complements the existing and ongoing work of the Cochrane Review Group.
How to propose a review and register a title
Authors interested in working on a particular review should refer to the guidance on the steps
and principles involved in registering a title on the Cochrane website and in the Cochrane
Handbook:
The Cochrane Collaboration: Registering titles for Cochrane Reviews
Cochrane Handbook Section 2.3.3: Registering a protocol
Authors are required to complete a Review Proposal Form (formerly called a Title Registration
Form) and submit it to the relevant CRG. Review Proposal Forms are available from Cochrane
Review Group websites.
Standard title formats
There are standard formats for Cochrane Review titles, as set out in the Cochrane Handbook,
Table 4.2.a.
Non-standard titles to are automatically alerted to the Cochrane Editorial Unit, where they will be
considered alongside current guidance for title structures in the Cochrane Handbook of
Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Editorial Unit may suggest alternative title
formulations, but the final decision on a title rests with Cochrane Review Groups.
Registering a diagnostic test accuracy review
Although the Collaboration has started publishing reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), not
all CRGs are registering titles for DTA reviews. Those interested in conducting DTA reviews
should contact the relevant CRG and visit the DTA Working Group website.
Managing title registration (for Cochrane Review Groups)
There are standard forms that Cochrane Review Groups may modify and use to receive review
proposals from authors. These forms, developed by the Cochrane Editorial Resources
Committee, were previously called Title Registration Forms and were renamed Review Proposal
Forms in 2013.
Review proposal form for intervention reviews
Review proposal form for DTA reviews
On receiving a completed Review Proposal Form, the Review Group Managing Editor will
initiate a Title Registration workflow (see workflows section); this workflow is described in a
flowchart:
Page 47/187
Cochrane IMS: Workflow template: Title Registration (Version 1.4)
In situations where a Cochrane Review Group editorial team considers a proposed title to be
potentially important but outside the scope of their group, they may ask the Cochrane Editorial
Unit to assist review author teams in finding an appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Co-registration of titles with the Campbell Collaboration
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
Managing expectations
What does Cochrane expect of authors, and what can authors expect of The
Cochrane?
Policy background
The preparation and maintenance of high quality systematic reviews requires contributors with
diverse competencies and skills, supported by staff from the editorial bases of Cochrane Review
Groups (CRGs) and Centres. Cochrane is committed to encouraging wide participation in which
the opportunities to contribute should be equally available to all. In practice, reconciling the
Cochrane’s principles of inclusivity with the limited capacity of CRGs and Centres to offer openended support necessarily means that the CRGs have to be pragmatic when considering
approaches from new review teams. For authors who are thinking about preparing a Cochrane
Review, there needs to be clear information about what is expected of them in terms of skills
and competencies, and in return what they can expect from CRGs and Centres by way of
training and support.
Accepting that there are considerable variations across CRGs and Centres and international
settings, the following policy sets out the broad expectations of author teams, CRGs and
Centres, and forms the basis of a ‘contract’ between authors, CRGs and Centres.
Review teams
Cochrane Reviews have to be prepared by at least two people, and often may require more
than two. A team must have among its members the range of skills and experience in order to
complete a Cochrane Review to the standard required by Cochrane and that the users of
Cochrane Reviews have come to expect. These skills and experience include:
content knowledge relating to the topic of the review;
basic knowledge of systematic review methodology (including formulating the review
question and eligibility criteria, searching and assessing the risk of bias of relevant
studies);
Page 48/187
basic statistical knowledge in order to extract appropriate data, conduct meta-analyses
where appropriate, and interpret and discuss the results;
the ability to write a scientific report of publishable standard in English;
project management and leadership ability within the team (usually the named Contact
Person).
In addition, all authors of a review team should:
approach the review with scientific rigour, be as objective as possible, and avoid
conflicts of interest;
be comprehensive, systematic and methodical in their approach to all aspects of the
review;
follow the advice and guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions, taking account of any specific instructions or preferences a CRG may
have.
The named Contact Person should:
submit a fully completed Cochrane Title Registration Form on behalf of the review team,
with realistic and achievable timelines for completion of the Protocol and full Review;
submit a current CV or provide evidence of previous experience in preparing systematic
reviews, if requested;
keep in touch with their CRG about their progress;
respond to correspondence from their CRG in a timely manner.
The review team should be aware of its limitations, be willing to receive and respond to
suggestions from the CRG editorial team and referees, be willing and able to see the review
through to completion, and to address updates.
To help authors, once a title has been accepted and registered, Cochrane provides a range of
training covering the steps involved in preparing a Cochrane Review (e.g. online learning,
workshops and webinars). This does not mean Cochrane has the resources or capacity to
provide open-ended support to teams of novice review authors; authors are still expected to be
familiar with the principles of systematic reviewing and to demonstrate that they have the
capacity to complete a review.
Despite support and encouragement, sometimes review teams struggle to make sufficient
progress with their review, or they submit draft versions that would require too much input from
the CRG editorial team to meet acceptable standards. In these circumstances, the CRG may
decide to withdraw the review from the authors, citing concerns over quality and the capacity of
the review team to complete the review.
It should be recognised that throughout the process of review preparation (be it at the title
registration, protocol or review stage) the review could be taken out of the editorial process due
to concerns about quality that cannot be resolved.
Page 49/187
Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)
CRG editorial teams should provide details on their website of the support they can provide to
their review teams. The support provided may vary from CRG to CRG and may change over
time as the CRG matures or circumstances change. CRGs need to ensure that their limited
resources are used to the maximum benefit of the users and funders of the CRG, so that
decisions in relation to prioritisation of reviews are inevitable.
CRG editorial teams should:
make explicit to potential review teams the level and type of support they can provide;
acknowledge receipt of completed Cochrane Title Registration Forms and inform the
authors within two weeks of receipt of the Title Registration Form when they can expect
to receive feedback on their proposal;
provide potential review teams with up-to-date details of the editorial process and
timelines for new proposals submitted for editorial consideration, including information
concerning prioritisation of topics;
respond to correspondence from their review teams in a timely manner;
put potential review teams in touch with their reference Cochrane Centre if required.
Cochrane Centres
Cochrane Centres and Branches provide different types of training to review authors, either
formally through courses, workshops and webinars, or informally through individual support.
Differences in the resources available at Centres and Branches mean that the level and volume
of training and support on offer varies considerably. Despite these differences in capacity,
Centres and Branches are expected to provide a minimum level of support. For example, some
authors may require additional help in navigating Cochrane processes, especially if they are
from countries where systematic reviews are less familiar or English is not their first language.
Likewise, if there are communication issues or disputes between author teams and CRGs, then
Centres and Branches should offer to mediate.
In respect of training and support, as a minimum Centres and Branches should:
provide advice to prospective review authors on the requirements, expectations and
processes of preparing a Cochrane Review;
indicate what sources of support are available locally, including listings of relevant
workshops and courses;
ensure the training provided is consistent with the Cochrane's approved training
resources;
help resolve any communication issues or disputes between CRGs and authors, either
with respect to registering a title or completing the protocol/review;
help with a range of basic queries concerning review methods, editorial processes and
using the RevMan software.
The flowchart "Managing expectations.pdf" (also available from CRG editorial teams) provides
Page 50/187
the available options when processing new proposals from review teams.
Standards for Cochrane Reviews
MECIR
Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews
(MECIR)
The Cochrane Collaboration has agreed standards for the conduct and reporting of Cochrane
Reviews of interventions. These standards specify the core attributes of Cochrane Reviews on
the effects of interventions. They provide authors and users of the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews with clear and transparent expectations of review conduct and reporting.
Cochrane Review Groups will also be able to use them to evaluate reviews during the editorial
process and facilitate support. Editorial bases, editors and review authors are expected to
ensure these standards are met in Cochrane Reviews of interventions. Each standard is given a
status of either mandatory (defined as compliance required for publication) or highly desirable
(defined as expected but may be justifiably not done). The standards and additional information
are available at http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir
The standards are compliant with the PRISMA standards with, currently, the exception of item 1
on the checklist: ‘Title: identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both’.
Review authors and Cochrane Review Groups are expected to follow the standards developed
specifically for Cochrane Reviews, in conjunction with PRISMA should that prove to be helpful.
PLEACS
Plain Language Expectations for Authors of Cochrane Summaries (PLEACS)
The Cochrane Collaboration has approved standards for the content of plain language
summaries of Cochrane Reviews. These standards specify the key messages from Cochrane
Reviews that should be included in the plain language summary. They include the requirement
that text be written in plain English, so the core components of writing for a lay audience are
presented in the rationale for the first standard.
The standards provide authors with guidance on the composition of plain language summaries.
Cochrane Review Groups will be able to direct authors to these standards for use in writing
plain language summaries. Editorial bases, editors, and review authors are expected to ensure
Page 51/187
that all plain language summaries are compliant with these standards.
Each standard is given a status of either mandatory (defined as compliance required for
publication) or highly desirable (defined as expected but may be justifiably not done). The
standards and additional information are available at www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir.
The process of writing plain language summaries: drafting, editing and final
approval
The first draft of the plain language summary should be written by the review author and
submitted with the review to the relevant CRG. The writing of plain language summaries,
however, is a specific skill, and review authors and CRGs may need support. Many CRGs have
this skill within their editorial team, but where this is not available, a central support service will
assist CRGs in writing and editing plain language summaries if they choose to access this
support. The following flow chart outlines the use of this service:
Page 52/187
The central summary support service will be maintained by the Cochrane Consumer
Network ([email protected]), with the support of the Cochrane Editorial Unit. CRGs
wishing to access this service should send the review to the above address. The ownership and
final approval of the plain language summary, as a mandatory part of the review, remains with
the CRG and the review author.
Figures and tables
General reporting guidelines
Each figure and table must have a caption providing a brief description (or explanation) of the
Page 53/187
figure and must be referred to in the review text (via a link in RevMan).
To ensure the best presentation of published reviews (particularly in the PDF version),
Cochrane Reviews should include a maximum of six figures, but ideally between 3 and 5. Only
the most important tables should remain as 'Additional tables' and other additional tables should
be moved to the Appendices and referenced with a hyperlink.
Further guidelines about figures and tables are available in the RevMan Userguide.
Quality requirements of figures and tables
We are working on this section. Please contact Jacob Riis ([email protected]), Nordic Cochrane
Centre, for information.
Copyright
When using images the authors have not produced themselves
Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for images included in the review and for
following guidance to ensure the images are fit for publication. If permission to publish a
copyrighted figure is granted, the final phrase of the figure caption must be: “Copyright © [Year]
[Name of copyright holder, or other required wording]: reproduced with permission.”
To preserve rights on images the authors have produced
We are working on this section. Please contact Harriet MacLehose
([email protected]), Cochrane Editorial Unit, for information.
Images showing sensitive information
We are working on this section. Please contact Harriet MacLehose
([email protected]), Cochrane Editorial Unit, for information.
Cochrane Review updates
Definition of an updated Cochrane Review
An update of a Cochrane Review must involve a search for new studies. If any new studies are
found, these must be added to the relevant section of the Cochrane Review and classified as
included, excluded, or ongoing studies (or ‘Studies awaiting classification’ if all reasonable
efforts to classify it in one of these ways have failed), before labelling the revised Cochrane
Page 54/187
Review as an update.
Any other change to a Cochrane Review, and any change to a Protocol for a Cochrane Review,
is an amendment, which could involve a little or a lot of work.
These definitions are from Section 3 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions.
Frequency of updating Cochrane Reviews
Cochrane Reviews should either be updated within two years of the first published version or
the previous update, or should have a commentary added to the ‘Published notes’ section of
the review to explain why this is done less frequently.
Protocols that have not been converted into full Cochrane Reviews within two years of
publication should generally be withdrawn from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(CDSR).
Citation of updated Cochrane Reviews
Since April 2012, all updated Cochrane Reviews receive a new citation so that the wording of
the abstracts is always consistent between the CDSR and MEDLINE and other databases. This
applies to all updated Cochrane Reviews because at the very least any update will include a
new ‘search date’. Citations to updates should be given even when a new search reveals no
new trials, and when there are no edits made to the Cochrane Review apart from updating the
search. Every time a Cochrane Review receives a new citation, the previously cited version is
archived in the CDSR alongside the current version (see the ‘Other Versions’ tab).
Selecting ‘What’s new’ events for updates to Cochrane Reviews
Two ‘What’s new’ events must be selected for Cochrane Review updates in Review Manager
(RevMan); see Table 1. The first is ‘Updated’. The second depends on whether the review
conclusions have changed following the update (‘New citation: conclusions changed’ or ‘New
citation: conclusions not changed’).
Table 1. Selecting the two ‘What’s new’ events in RevMan for Cochrane Review updates
Types of updates
RevMan event 1
RevMan event 2
Cochrane Review update and
conclusions changed
Updated
New citation: conclusions
changed
Cochrane Review update and
conclusions not changed
Updated
New citation: conclusions not
changed
Acknowledging previous versions of the review within an updated review
Page 55/187
Updated Cochrane Reviews should acknowledge and cite the previous versions of the same
Cochrane Review in the section ‘Other published versions of this review’ in RevMan, and the
Cochrane Review text should reference the citation and make clear to readers that a previous
version or versions have been published. The need for transparency in the publishing record of
a Cochrane Review highlights the importance of citing every updated Cochrane Review so that
there is a permanent record available to readers in the CDSR.
Licence for publication and declaration of interests forms
Authors need to complete a new licence for publication form and declaration of interest form
each time an update is published.
Also see 'Changes to citation and author contact details in published Cochrane Reviews'.
Cochrane Review management
Avoiding duplication of Cochrane Reviews
On occasion, a Cochrane Review or a Protocol for a Cochrane Review may be developed by
different author teams concurrently but independently. This can be avoided if a Cochrane
Review Group has a good communication system, but occasionally duplication does occur. In
this situation the different author teams should be encouraged to combine their energies and
produce a single Cochrane Review, or alternatively split the topic into two Cochrane Reviews,
taking care not to duplicate effort in the process. To help to avoid such duplication, titles of new
Cochrane Reviews are registered in Archie (see section on Archie). Publishing the titles of
protocols under development in the Cochrane Review Group’s newsletter may also help to
avoid duplication.
Guidelines for managing reviews with overlapping scope
Background
As the number of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) increases, so does the likelihood that the
scope of CRGs can coincide or have common interests. Several factors may contribute to
potential overlaps in various aspects of a review question. Whilst an overlap may be
unavoidable, early consultation and collaboration can reduce duplication and ensure that review
authors are supported by the most appropriate CRG for their review question. This document
provides guidance for these decisions and a transparent arbitration procedure in the eventuality
that CRGs are unable to agree on the most appropriate CRG to host a review.
Overlap can occur at any juncture of the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes
Page 56/187
(PICO) process. For example:
the Population with the condition of interest can have co-morbidities, present with, or be
treated in multiple settings;
treatments (Intervention) can have multiple applications or be offered in different
settings;
Comparison treatments can be different, or offered in different settings;
Outcomes can be specific to a setting, or be evaluated in different conditions and in
different populations.
CRGs that have obvious overlaps will find it helpful to develop strategies to manage situations
on an ongoing basis. If they are unable to agree in specific circumstances, they will refer the title
and any supporting documentation to the Editor in Chief (EiC).
The aim is that reviews should differentiate on at least ONE of the PICO categories, i.e.
Population, Intervention, Comparison or Outcome.
The process
1. On receipt of a review title, the receiving Managing Editor (ME) assesses whether the
PICO straddles the scope of one or more CRGs. Entering the title in Archie as a Vacant
title will help to identify potential overlaps electronically.
2. Based on the PICO, the MEs informally discuss which of the interested CRGs is best
placed to support the review question.
3. On reaching an agreement, the CRG with the scope to which the review question is
most closely aligned is nominated as the 'primary CRG' i.e. the Host CRG. The other
CRG(s) that have an interest will be invited to adopt a supporting role in the review
process and nominated as the Non-host CRG(s).
4. To maintain the collaborative process, both Host and Non-host CRGs should have
ongoing roles in the development of the title, protocol, review and ongoing update. Both
Host and Non-host CRG should agree the level of participation; for example, if the Nonhost CRG does not wish to participate at a detailed level, then the Host CRG will adopt
an ‘information only’ approach; alternatively, if the Non-host CRG agrees to participate
fully, then the editorial process as outlined below will be followed.
5. In the event that MEs are unable to reach an agreement as to who should be the Host
CRG, the matter will be referred to the Co-ordinating Editors (Co-Eds) of both CRGs for
a decision.
6. In the event that the Co-Eds are unable to reach an agreement as to which CRG should
be the Host CRG, the matter will be referred to the EiC who will be asked to rule on the
most appropriate Host CRG.
Page 57/187
7. All CRGs participating in the discussion will agree to abide by the decision of the EiC.
8. In the interest of a timely response to the review authors, every effort should be made to
complete each step within two to three weeks. The receiving ME should keep the review
authors informed of progress.
9. The Host CRG processes and if approved, registers the title in Archie and adds all
authors to Archie (if not already on the database).
10. The Host CRG notifies the Non-host CRG that this step has been completed to enable
the Non-host CRG to link this registered title to their Topics List.
11. The Host CRG is responsible for primary contact with the review team.
12. Once the protocol/review has been drafted and is ready for peer review, the Host CRG
will invite the Non-host CRG(s) to contribute to the peer review process.
13. Once peer review is complete and the authors have responded to the peer reviewers’
comments, the Host CRG will forward the feedback and authors’ responses to the Nonhost CRG for information.
14. Once the protocol/review has been signed off for submission by the Host CRG, the Host
CRG notifies the Non-host CRG.
15. The involvement of the Non-host CRG is fully acknowledged in the protocol/review, in
addition to the contribution of the peer reviewers. This will be dependent on the policy of
the Host CRG, recognising that some CRGs do not operate an ‘open peer review’
system. The policy of the Host CRG will prevail.
16. The protocol and subsequent review are included in both CRGs’ Topic Lists, which are
reflected on the 'Browse' menu in The Cochrane Library.
17. The literature searches should always include access to both Host and Non-Host CRG
resources (such as specialised registers) as a matter of routine.
Protocol templates
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
IMS workflow for Cochrane Reviews
For information on IMS workflows for Cochrane reviews, see the relevant section of this
resource.
Page 58/187
Peer review
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
Cochrane Editorial Unit pre-publication screening of new
Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions
From September 2013, the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) will commence a pre-publication
quality assurance programme for new Cochrane Reviews of intervention. This will involve
screening each new intervention review against key criteria. Below is a summary outline of
review screening process:
A team of editors based at the CEU will commence screening of new intervention
reviews from September 2013.
The team will screen reviews after they have been signed off by the Cochrane Review
Groups (CRGs), usually by the Co-ordinating Editor.
The criteria used for this process will draw on a subset of key items from the MECIR
conduct and reporting standards, but where other potentially critical issues outside this
subset are identified these will also be considered.
For each review, the screening process will lead to the production of a short report which
will be sent to the CRG. This will outline the proposed actions, including proceed to
publication or suspension of the publication process. The CRG may be asked to share
the report with the review authors, accredited copy-editor or Copy Edit Support.
The screening process will not currently include protocols or updated reviews.
In the event that substantial issues are identified during the screening process, such that
publication is suspended, the review may be subject to a more extensive evaluation by
experienced Co-ordinating Editors and methodologists. The CEU team will consult with
the CRG editorial teams on potential solutions.
The process has helped to identify examples of good practice and common errors in
Cochrane Reviews. Relevant resources are being developed and maintained on the
MECIR website.
Download a PDF with further details (Archie login required).
Copy-editing
This section includes information about copy-editing policy (including copy-editor accreditation
and Copy Edit Support), the Cochrane Style Guide (and the Cochrane Style Guide Basics for
authors), and the copy-editing checklists.
Page 59/187
Copy-editing policy
All Cochrane Reviews (including protocols and updates) must be copy-edited before publication.
Who can copy-edit Cochrane Reviews?
Copy-editing must be performed by either a member of Copy Edit Support or an accredited copyeditor in the Cochrane Review Group (CRG). This policy was implemented in May 2012.
If CRGs would like to continue using a member of their editorial team to copy-edit Cochrane
Reviews, the nominated person/people will be required to pass an accreditation process. For
more information contact Elizabeth Royle, Copy Edit Support Manager.
Copy Edit Support
Copy Edit Support is a copy-editing service for all CRGs. Copy Edit Support helps Cochrane
Review Group (CRG) staff to achieve a high standard of copy-editing in reviews being prepared
for publication. All reviews submitted to Copy Edit Support for copy-editing should already have
gone through the copy-editing process at the CRG level. Copy Edit Support aims to work
alongside CRGs to enhance the clarity and readability of reviews.
Copy Edit Support was set up in 2004 by Cochrane’s publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, which
continues to support the service. In January 2014 management of Copy Edit Support was
transferred to the Cochrane Editorial Unit.
Copy Edit Support team
Cochrane employs a team of freelance copy-editors. The members of the current team are:
Jenny Bellorini (current Managing Editor)
Kate Cahill (current Managing Editor)
Clare Dooley (current Assistant Managing Editor)
Jason Elliot-Smith
Gillian Gummer
Joey Kwong (former Managing Editor)
Anne Lawson
Dolores Matthews
Heather Maxwell (former Managing Editor)
Megan Prictor (current Managing Editor)
Elizabeth Royle (former Managing Editor, and CES Manager)
Janet Wale (member of the Cochrane Consumer Network)
Carolyn Wayne
Lisa Winer
Page 60/187
Copy Edit Support also recruits and trains new copy-editors periodically. For more information, send an
inquiry to [email protected].
What are the standards used for copy-editing?
Copy-editors check submissions against the Cochrane Style Guide, and other Cochrane
guidelines including the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews
(MECIR) standards, the Plain Language Expectations for Authors of Cochrane Summaries
(PLEACS) standards, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and the copy-editing
checklists.
Where should I send protocols, reviews, or updates for copy-editing?
Send an email about your protocol, review or update to Elizabeth Royle (Copy Edit Support
Manager) at [email protected]. Please state the review title in the subject line of your email
and whether the submission is a protocol, new review or an update. For new reviews and
updates, please state how many included trials there are. There is no need to send a copy of
the protocol, review, or update with the email message.
When should I submit my reviews?
Please notify Copy Edit Support as soon as your review is ready for copy-editing.
When will I get the reviews back?
Copy Edit Support works to a schedule of returning copy-edits within two weeks of submission.
Occasionally, submissions may take longer if the number of submissions requiring processing
during a particular period exceeds the team’s working capacity, or if there is a problem in
access being granted to a review once a copy-editor has been assigned. We inform CRGs as
soon as possible if we anticipate delays in returning copy-edits.
What should I do after I get my reviews back?
The copy-editor will let you know when the review has been copy-edited. You can then either
check changes to the review made using the Track Changes function, or check against the precopy-edited version using the 'compare documents' function in Archie, raise any necessary
queries with the copy-editor or authors, and approve the review for publication.
How does the copy-editing system work?
The copy-editors of Copy Edit Support copy-edit reviews in Review Manager, using the
following process:
1. The CRG sends an email to Copy Edit Support to say that a protocol, review, or review update is
ready for copy-editing.
Page 61/187
2. Copy Edit Support confirms receipt of this and, as soon as possible, lets the CRG know which copyeditor will be working on the submission. The copy-editor is copied in on this response so that s/he is
advised of the assignment. (Generally it is not possible to do this all in one step, Copy Edit Support
confirms receipt in one email and then sends a separate email advising when the copy-editor has
been assigned.)
3. The CRG authorises the named copy-editor to have the necessary Archie document permissions for
the review to be copy-edited, and ensures that the review is in the ‘Editorial’ phase.
4. The copy-editor checks the review out of Archie, copy-edits it (using Track Changes, or not; UK or
USA English spelling; and provides notes/comments in the CRG’s preferred format), and checks it
back in.
5. The copy-editor informs the CRG when the review has been copy-edited.
What kind of copy-edit training does Copy Edit Support provide?
Copy Edit Support does not provide basic copy-edit training, but rather focuses on providing
training in elements of Cochrane style. For people interested in receiving training in the basics
of copy-editing, a list of copy-editing resources is available here.
Questions?
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact Elizabeth Royle at Copy Edit
Support via [email protected]
Copy-editing checklists
The Editorial Resources Committee (ERC) aims to support CRGs and other Cochrane entities
by providing useful resources to support their work, including information packs, forms and
checklists. The checklists are developed by ERC members in consultation with relevant
constituencies within Cochrane, and are approved by the Cochrane Editorial Unit. Checklists
are designed to be comprehensive and to facilitate continuity across the Cochrane entities, but
CRGs are free to modify the documents to suit their own editorial processes or preferences.
The ERC currently provides two copy-editing checklists:
The pre-copy-editing checklist outlines the items that editorial teams should aim to address in
protocols, reviews and updates before the work is submitted to Copy Edit Support for copyediting.
The copy-editor's checklist outlines the items that copy-editors should check when they are
copy-editing protocols, reviews, or updates.
Information and guidance on how to use these checklists are available at the start of each
checklist.
Cochrane Style Guide and Cochrane Style Guide Basics
Page 62/187
Cochrane Style Guide
The Cochrane Style Guide is designed to help review authors and people responsible for copyediting to use a consistent style when copy-editing Cochrane Reviews and other documents
produced by The Cochrane Collaboration.
Current version: October 2010, 4.1 edition.
Intended users: Editorial teams and copy editors, people preparing official Cochrane
documents, authors preparing Cochrane Reviews.
Prepared by: Cochrane Style Guide Working Group.
Background: The Cochrane Style Guide was originally developed by the participants of project
called the 'Prospective copy edit pilot'. It was approved for use within The Cochrane
Collaboration on 6 December 2002 by The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group.
Contact: Contact Harriet MacLehose (Senior Editor, Cochrane Editorial Unit) with any queries
or suggestions for changes or additions.
Cochrane Style Guide Basics
Cochrane Style Guide Basics, a two-page collection of essential house style guidelines, is also
available for authors of Cochrane Reviews and protocols.
Current version: September 2009.
Description: A two-page document containing essential copy-editing guidance for authors.
Intended users: Authors preparing Cochrane Reviews and other people interested in learning
the basics of Cochrane copy-editing style.
Prepared by: Cochrane Style Guide Working Group.
Contact: Harriet MacLehose, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
The Cochrane Style Guide and Cochrane Style Basics are developed and maintained by the
Cochrane Style Guide Working Group.
Cochrane Style Guide Working Group
The Cochrane Style Guide Working Group develops and maintains the Cochrane Style Guide in
response to feedback. The Cochrane Style Guide Working Group reports to the Editor in Chief.
Membership
Members, to be nominated by the Convenor or Co-Convenors of the Group, and approved by
the Editor in Chief, must be actively involved in copy-editing and proofing texts for publication in
The Cochrane Library or on a Cochrane website. The membership should include various
Cochrane editorial roles, including Managing Editors, Trials Search Co-ordinators, Copy Edit
Support members; at least one member should be based in a non-English speaking country.
Members are expected to:
be familiar with the Cochrane Style Guide and related resources;
Page 63/187
participate in meetings;
read and comment on circulated documents;
respond to electronic communications within agreed timescales;
help plan for the future development of the Cochrane Style Guide and related resources;
assist with publicizing the Cochrane Style Guide and related resources.
Current members
Kate Cahill, Copy Edit Support
Clare Dooley, Copy Edit Support
Luisa Fernandez Mauleffinch, Managing Editor, Cochrane Oral Health Group
Gillian Gummer, Copy Edit Support
John Hilton, Editor, Cochrane Editorial Unit
Nikki Jahnke, Assistant Managing Editor, Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic
Disorders Group
Rachael Kelly, Managing Editor, Cochrane Epilepsy Group
Joey Kwong, Copy Edit Support
Harriet MacLehose, Senior Editor, Cochrane Editorial Unit
Dolores Matthews, Copy Edit Support
Heather Maxwell, Copy Edit Support
Dimitrinka Nikolova, Managing Editor, Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group
Nancy Owens, Web Content and Social Media Editor, Cochrane Communications and
External Affairs Department
Tracey Remmington, Managing Editor, Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders
Group
Elizabeth Royle, Copy Edit Support Manager, Cochrane Editorial Unit
Sera Tort, Clinical Editor, Cochrane Editorial Unit
Previous members
Emma Tavender (Satellite Co-ordinator, Effective Practice of Care) provided advice and
guidance for the 4th Edition (2008); Sonja Henderson (Co-convenor until August 2004); Vicki
Sparkes; Susanne Ebrahim; Lesley Gillespie; Reive Robb (until 2007); Alison Beamond (until
2014).
Advisors
The following people have advised on versions of the Cochrane Style Guide: Tara Horvath
(American English specialist); Heather Maxwell (RevMan Advisory Group); Joseph Beyene
(Statistical Methods Group); Jini Hetherington (Publishing Policy Group).
Who can I contact for further information?
Harriet MacLehose ([email protected]).
Funding
Page 64/187
Core funds of The Cochrane Collaboration support the Cochrane Style Guide Working Group,
through the Quality Advisory Group (until April 2009) and the Cochrane Editorial Unit (from April
2009).
Overview of date fields in Cochrane Reviews
There are several date fields associated with a Cochrane Review (including protocols and
updates). These are described in Table 1. Detailed descriptions of several of the date fields are
available in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (section 3.3).
Table 1. Overview of date fields in Cochrane Reviews: description, source of date, and
where the dates are displayed
No.
Type of
date
Descripti
on
Added
by who
Displayed?
Unpublish
ed CRs (in
RevMan)
Other
dates (ie
not in
‘What’s
new’ in
RevMan)
CDSR:
search
results
page
CDSR: CR CDSR: CR
header
body
PubMed
Yesa
Yes
No
Yes
Editorial te Yes
am/authors
No
Yes
Yes
No
See
section on
'Reporting
search
dates in
Cichrane
Reviews'
Editorial te Yes
am/authors
No
No
No
No
Protocols
= date full
review
expected;
Reviews =
date next
Authors
No
No
No
No
1.
Published
online
Date on
Publisher
which a
new
citation
version of
a review is
published
in the
CDSR
(specificall
y new and
updated
reviews)
2.
Assessed
as up-todate
See box
below
3.
Date of
search
4.
Date next
stage
expected
No
Yes
Page 65/187
update
expected
5.
Protocol
first
published
—
Cochrane
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
6.
Review
first
published
—
Cochrane
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
7.
Last
citation
issue
—
Cochrane
Yes
No
No
No
No
CDSR: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CR: Cochrane Review; RevMan: Review Manager.
a
Different rules have been used in the past and that the dates in all Cochrane Reviews are being checked to ensure they
match this rule.
What’s New events (publishing events) in Cochrane Reviews: new
publication, new citation, or change in publication status
When a Cochrane Review (or a protocol) is published for the first time a new citation version is
automatically generated. Cochrane Review citation versions are recorded in reference
databases such as MEDLINE and Science Citation Index (SCI). Protocols do not have citations
in MEDLINE or SCI, but are included in other databases such as PROSPERO.
The following tables describe the events that lead to a new publication, new citation, or a
change in the publication status for protocols (Table 1) and reviews (Table 2). These events are
called ‘What’s New events’ in Review Manager.
Occasionally, it may be necessary to split a protocol or review into two or more protocols or
reviews, or merge two or more protocols or reviews to create a new protocol or review. Each of
the new versions will have a new citation.
Note: While it is technically possible to enter several ‘What’s New’ events in an updated
review, only information about the changes since the last published version should be in the
‘What’s New’ table. ‘What’s New’ events from previously published versions should be
moved to the History table.
Table 1. Protocols for Cochrane Reviews: events that lead to a new publication or change
in publication status (‘What’s New’ events)
Change
New citation version?
‘What’s New’ events to
select
Page 66/187
Examples
Major change
Y
(1) New citation: major
change
An important change to the
objectives or scope of the
proposed review, usually
through a change to the
criteria for including
studies
Amended
N
(1) Amended
Any change to the protocol
content that does not
change the objectives,
scope or criteria for
including studies
Y
(1) New citation: no major
change
Changes in authorship
(also see 'Authorship and
contributorship'), or the title
of the protocol
Y
(1) Change status to
‘withdrawn’ on the
Advanced tab of the
Properties sheet in Archie
See further information
Withdrawn
AND
(2) Amended
Table 2. Cochrane Reviews: events that lead to a new publication, new citation, or
change in publication status (‘What’s New’ events)
Change
Conclusions
changed?
New citation
version?
‘What’s New’
events to select
Examples
First publication
n/a
Y
None
Review published for
the first time
Update
Y
Y
(1) New citation:
conclusions
changed
Must include a new
search and studies
fully incorporated*, or
no new studies
identified. May also
include:
(New search and any
studies fully
incorporated*)
AND
(2) Updated
Addition (or
removal) of
studies
Changes in
results of
analyses, m
ethodology,
or review
scope
Correction
Page 67/187
of a serious
error
N
Y
(1) New citation:
conclusions not
changed
AND
(2) Updated
Must include a new
search and studies
fully incorporated*, or
no new studies
identified. May also
include any changes
that do not change
conclusions, such
as:
Change to
the
Background
section
Addition (or
removal) of
new studies
Changes in
results of
analyses
(e.g. in
effect
estimates or
confidence
intervals), m
ethodology,
or review
scope (e.g.
new
outcomes, c
omparisons,
types of
participants
or develop
ments in the
intervention
or its
delivery)
Changes in
authorship
Amendment
Y
Y
(1) Amended
(No new search, or
new search and
studies not fully
incorporated*)
AND
(2) New citation:
conclusions changed
Page 68/187
Addition (or
removal) of
studies (e.g.
the full
inclusion of
a study
previously
awaiting cla
ssification)
Changes in
results of
analyses, m
ethodology,
or review
scope
N
N
(1) Amended
Any changes that do
not change
conclusions, such
as:
Change to
the
Background
section.
Addition (or
removal) of
new studies
(e.g. the full
inclusion of
a study
previously
awaiting cla
ssification)
New search
performed,
but studies
not fully
incorporate
d into the
results of
the review
(i.e. added
to ‘Studies
awaiting cla
ssification’)
Changes in
results of
analyses
(e.g. in
effect
estimates or
confidence
intervals), m
ethodology,
review
scope of the
review (e.g.
new
outcomes, c
omparisons,
types of
participants
or develop
Page 69/187
ments in the
intervention
or its
delivery)
N
Y
(1) Amended
Changes in
authorship
AND
(2) New citation:
conclusions not
changed
No longer updated
(stable)
N
N
(1) No longer
updated
Intervention
is
superseded
(bearing in
mind that
Cochrane
reviews
should be in
ternationally
relevant)
Conclusion
is so certain
that the
addition of
new
information
will not
change it,
and there
are no
foreseeable
adverse
effects of
the
intervention
Withdrawn
n/a
Y
(1) Change status to
‘withdrawn’ on the
Advanced tab of the
Properties sheet in
Archie
See further
information
AND
(2) Amended
*Studies are fully incorporated into the Cochrane Review if added to the included studies, excluded studies,
ongoing studies, or studies awaiting classification (only if all reasonable efforts to integrate it into included,
excluded, or ongoing have failed), or no new studies identified in search. Studies are not fully incorporated if
studies identified by the search are added to studies awaiting classification only (see exception above). See
Page 70/187
‘Reporting search dates’ for further information.
Reporting search dates in Cochrane Reviews
Update, January 2015: At the joint meetings of the Co-ordinating Editors, Managing Editors,
and Trials Search Co-ordinators held during the Cochrane Colloquia in Auckland (2012) and
Quebec (2013) it was agreed that ‘Date of search’ should be used instead of ‘Assessed as upto-date’ to reflect the search and full incorporation of all search results into a Cochrane Review.
The technical issues associated with retiring the ‘Assessed as up-to-date’ field are currently
being addressed by Cochrane and Wiley; however this will not prevent editorial teams from
adhering to this new policy on how to report search dates.
One date should be used to reflect the search and full incorporation of all search results into the
review; this date is the ‘Date of search’ and should be highly visible to users/readers. Standard
practice has been to publish ‘Assessed as up-to-date’ field and not the ‘Date of search’. Until
the ‘Assessed as up-to-date’ field is removed these two dates must be the same.
Definitions of search types (full, top-up, scoping) are available in Table 1.
1. MECIR conduct standard C37 requires that searches for all relevant databases be
run (or re-run) within 12 months before publication of the review or review update,
and that the results are screened for potentially eligible studies.
2. Updates vs. amendments: a review is considered updated and receives a new citation
in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) when a new search is conducted
and the results of the search are fully incorporated. If a scoping search is conducted to
determine if an update is required, then the date of this search will not change the ‘Date
of search’ in the review or lead to a new citation version being created. This should be
published as an amendment if necessary (see guidance).
3. If top-up searches are performed and the results incorporated then that top-up
search date becomes the date of the full search (i.e. the date that appears in the
‘Date of Search’ field).
4. If top-up searches are performed and the results are NOT fully incorporated then:
1. The ‘Date of search’ remains the date of the search for which results were fully
incorporated (and this date must be within a year of publication, and ideally
within six months).
2. Studies not yet fully incorporated into the review are added to ‘Studies awaiting
classification’.
3. The 'Search methods' in the abstract should focus on reporting the search
dates related to the last fully incorporated studies. Brief mention of a top-up
search may be made only if it was conducted for a completed update or new
review. Do not refer to scoping searches for updating in the abstract.
4. The ‘Search methods for identification of studies’ in the main text of the
review should be used primarily to describe the details of the search for which
the results have been fully incorporated, i.e. the dates of individual database
Page 71/187
searching and the hits retrieved should be based on the search date where
results are fully incorporated. If a top-up search has been performed, but the
results not yet fully incorporated, the search section may briefly describe this
(see example below) and state how many studies have been placed in ‘Studies
awaiting classification’. Further details of the top-up search, such as the dates
each database was searched may be given in an appendix.
5. In the 'Results of the search' section the authors should specify the number of
studies yet to be fully incorporated into the review. This should also be reflected
in the conclusions (both of the main review and the abstract).
6. The PRISMA flow of studies diagram should also reflect the number of studies
in the ‘Studies awaiting classification’ section.
7. The 'What’s New' events must describe the number of studies that have been
put into ‘Studies awaiting classification’ if the top-up search is mentioned in the
search methods section.
5. If different databases were searched on different dates, the most recent date of the
search for each database should be given within the text of the review and the earliest of
these dates should be entered as the ‘Date of Search’. In the case of review updates or
‘top-up’ searches, if there is clear rationale for not searching one or more of the
previously searched databases (e.g. because no unique relevant records were identified
in the original/previous search, or the database is no longer being updated), the
rationale should be stated within the text of the review. In this case, the ‘Date of
Search’ should be the earliest date of the searches performed for this smaller set of
databases.
Table 1. Definitions of search types (full, top-up, scoping)
Search types
Full search – results fully incorporated
Top-up search – results not fully incorporated
Scoping search for updating
Definition
Electronic search strategies run in full in all
relevant databases AND all search results are
assessed for eligibility and either included or
excluded
Electronic search strategies run in full in all
relevant databases BUT search results are not
all assessed for eligibility, instead they are
placed in Studies awaiting classification
Electronic search strategies run in selected
databases to determine if an update is required
Examples of reporting top-up searches
The number of instances where a top-up search is performed and potential new studies are
identified but not fully incorporated before publication should remain low. The following
examples show how such searches should be described in various sections of a systematic
review:
Page 72/187
What’s New
Do not change the ‘Date of search’ or the ‘Assessed as up-to-date’ in the ‘Review
information’ section. Also, if less than 10 trial reports then list here in parentheses and link. For
example:
“The search was updated in month/year and n trial reports added to ‘Studies awaiting
classification’ (e.g. Bertini 2005; Crowther 2005; Gillen 2004).”
Abstract
Search methods
The focus should remain on the text about previous searches (fully incorporated) but the top-up
search may be mentioned. For example:
“We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and
CINAHL (June 2013). We updated this search in September 2014, but these results have not
yet been incorporated.”
Main text
Search methods for identification of studies
The search should be reported as per MECIR reporting standards R34 to 39, including the
dates for each source. At the end of the search methods section, it is appropriate to add the
following text:
“We performed a further search in [month/year]. Those results have been added to ‘Studies
awaiting classification’ and will be incorporated into the review at the next update.”
Do not list all databases and the dates. If a top-up search in reported in this section, only a
single month (or range of months) and year should be shown.
Results: Description of studies
This section will differ depending on the review, so add text where it is most appropriate); for
example:
“[insert number] study reports from an updated search in [month/year] have been added to
‘Studies awaiting classification’.”
Discussion: Potential biases in the review process
Acknowledge the potential impact of un-incorporated studies as a source of potential bias,
especially if studies concerned are potentially important in terms of sample size or direction of
Page 73/187
effect; for example:
“We attempted to conduct a comprehensive search for studies, but the fact that [insert number]
studies have not yet been incorporated may be a source of potential bias.”
Authors’ conclusions (Implications for practice)
This is not an implication for practice as such, but users should be alerted to the issue of unincorporated studies, particularly if the studies concerned are potentially important in terms of
sample size or direction of effect; for example:
“The [insert number] studies in ‘Studies awaiting classification’ may alter the conclusions of
the review once assessed.”
Updating Classification System for Cochrane Reviews
The Updating Classification System, which is planned for release across all Cochrane Review
Groups, aims to guide readers as to whether the Cochrane Review (intially for reviews of
interventions only) is (1) up to date and (2) likely to be updated in future. The system may also
help Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) with prioritisation decisions.
The framework has four parameters:
1. Relevance: Provides readers with a description about whether the question the
Cochrane Review addresses is ‘Historical’ or ‘Current’.
2. Update status: Provides readers with a guide to the status of the Cochrane Review, and
the likely future plans for the Cochrane Review with respect to updating.
3. Reason: Provides readers with a brief reason for the relevance and status.
4. Editor's/Editors' comment: Provides more detail to readers about the reasoning for the
relevance and status. It also guides readers to more relevant Cochrane Reviews if
available. This section is free text, but CRGs will be encouraged to follow standard
phrasing or suggest new standard phrasing if not already provided.
Information about the system's development is available in the Background paper for the 2012
Strategic Session on Cochrane content (see Theme 6: http://www.editorialunit.cochrane.org/collaboration-strategic-session-2012-cochrane-content).
Further information for Cochrane Review Groups is available here (Archie login required).
Changes to citation and author details in published Cochrane
Reviews
Citations of published Cochrane Reviews (including protocols) include the author names, review
Page 74/187
title, review publication year and issue, and author contact information. A citation reflects the
details at the time of the publication. The following scenarios describe cases where a change
may be requested by an author, and actions to take.
Changes to author name
If an author changes their name after the publication of a Cochrane Review (e.g. through
marriage), the name on the published version of the Cochrane Review should not be changed
until the next citation version (e.g. with a review update); a new citation version should not be
created for this purpose.
If, however, a review was published with an error in the author’s name (at the time of
publication), then a new citation version can be published to correct this error.
Changes to author contact details
Authors' contact details may change over time. Occasionally, authors may wish to update their
contact details only (i.e. not add or remove authors) in the published Cochrane Review between
citation versions, and this can proceed at the discretion of the Managing Editor. If there is a
decision to update the contact details in the published Cochrane Review, the Cochrane Review
must be republished as an amendment with no new citation. Note that the new contact details
will appear only on the review version in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and
not, for example, in PubMed.
Changes in authorship
Authors wishing to add or remove an author post-publication, and before the next citation
version, must submit a request to the Managing Editor of the Cochrane Review Group.
Managing Editors are recommended to use the COPE flowcharts for the following scenarios:
Request for addition of extra author after publication
Request for removal of author after publication
One of the outcomes of the COPE flowcharts is to publish a correction. Instead of publishing a
correction, the review should be republished as an amendment with a new citation.
Policy on withdrawing published Cochrane Reviews (including
protocols)
The decision to withdraw a published Cochrane Review (or protocol) should generally be made
between the authors and the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial team. The reason for the
withdrawal should be given in the Published Notes section of the protocol or review. When a
protocol or review is withdrawn, it will be flagged in the published version in the Cochrane
Page 75/187
Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) as ‘withdrawn’ and only the title, coversheet, and
reason for withdrawal will be published.
Published Cochrane Reviews (including protocols) are not removed from the CDSR. (Up to 16
December 2014, withdrawn protocols were removed from the CDSR after one issue of
publication. From this date onwards, withdrawn protocols remain published to maintain the
public record of publication and to complement the inclusion in PROSPERO.) A review may be
withdrawn temporarily (suspended) and can be reinstated once it is considered satisfactory by
the authors and the CRG's editorial team; otherwise it should remain withdrawn. Published
versions that precede a withdrawn version are available in the CDSR by clicking on the ‘Other
versions’ tab in the article.
Reasons for withdrawing Cochrane Protocols and Reviews from
the CDSR
Protocols for a Cochrane Review
The authors have requested this protocol to be withdrawn. The reason/s is/are [insert
reason(s)].
The protocol is out of date and does not meet the current methodological standards of
The Cochrane Collaboration.
Authors have made no progress with this protocol in XX months/years. New authors are
being sought to take over this protocol.
The protocol has been republished as a Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol (provide full
reference).
The protocol has been split into these protocols (provide full references).
The protocol has been merged with another (provide full reference).
Title reassignment: A new protocol will be published by the review authors (provide list
of authors).
The Cochrane Review Group was unable to maintain contact with the contact author.
The co-authors are unable to take over this protocol. New authors are being sought to
take over this protocol.
Cochrane Reviews
The Editor/CRG withdrew this review as of Issue X, 20XX. The review will be reinstated
following a substantive update.
Potentially relevant studies may have been excluded from this review and it has been
withdrawn pending further investigation.
The statistical analysis may have been inappropriate and this review has been
withdrawn pending further investigation.
There may be errors with data presentation and this review has been withdrawn pending
further investigation.
Major errors in the review have been identified (e.g. through the Feedback mechanism).
These errors are: [insert]. The review will be re-published following revision and peer
Page 76/187
review.
Non-compliance with The Cochrane Collaboration’s Commercial Sponsorship Policy.
The review has been combined with [insert number] an/other published Cochrane
Review(s) and the new combined review has been published as [insert full reference].
The review has been split into [insert number] reviews that will be/have been published
as [insert full references if known].
This review is being updated and replaced following the publication of a new protocol
[insert full reference]. It will remain withdrawn when the new review is published.
The review has been republished as a Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review [insert full
reference].
The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason/s is/are [insert
reason(s)].
Authors are unable to update the review. New authors are being sought to update this
review.The review has been withdrawn while the authors update aspects of its
methodology ([list these]).
Dual publication of a Cochrane Review by more than one
Cochrane Review Group
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
Process in the event of serious errors in published Cochrane
Reviews
The Cochrane Collaboration has robust, open, and methodologically mature processes aimed at
ensuring that Cochrane Reviews provide the best available evidence of the effects of healthcare
interventions. These include documented methodologies, training, internal and external peer
review, an open feedback system, and a willingness to embrace continuous improvement.
However, it can be expected that, despite these best endeavours, flaws may appear in
Cochrane Reviews from time to time. Most of these flaws will be relatively minor, but may
occasionally be more severe. The procedure to be followed in the event of a serious error is
outlined here.
Definitions
For the purpose of this process a Cochrane Review is defined as containing a serious error
when one or more of the following events occur:
Following the recommendations of the review could result in harm to patients or
populations of interest (other than known adverse effects).
The reported treatment effect is inconsistent with the real effect shown in the reported
data.
Page 77/187
Process to be followed
The Editor in Chief must be notified of all suspected or confirmed serious errors. The Editor in
Chief and the Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) that published the
Cochrane Review will examine the review in light of the notification.
If they do not consider the error to be a serious error, the Editor and Chief and the Co-ordinating
Editor of the CRG will agree a timetable for correcting the error depending on the nature of the
error.
If the error is deemed serious or dangerous (according to the definitions), the following steps will
be followed with urgency.
1. CRG to withdraw review immediately (in lieu of being able to retract articles at the
moment). The reason for withdrawal must mention the serious error.
2. EiC to notify the Co-ordinating Editors’ Executive, CEO, Co-Chairs of The Cochrane
Collaboration, and the CRG’s reference Cochrane Centre. These individuals will make
a decision on the need for further communications. They will also be kept informed of
developments as the next steps are worked through.
3. Editor in Chief, in consultation with CRG Co-ordinating Editor, the Co-ordinating Editors’
Executive, and publisher, will release advisory press notice to list used for usual review
dissemination activities (e.g. press release, social media, cochrane.org), and withdraw
original press release if affected and/or if there was one. Additionally, the Editor in Chief,
in conjunction with the CRG Co-ordinating Editor, the Co-ordinating Editors’ Executive,
and CEO will determine whether there are groups external to the Collaboration (such as
funders) that should be notified.
4. CRG Co-ordinating Editor with input from the Editor in Chief and his staff to examine
cause of error and possible solutions. CRG Co-ordinating Editor to compile a written
report for the Editor in Chief describing the error, how it was caused, why it was not
identified before publication, and what changes the CRG has or will make to editorial
process to prevent a recurrence.
5. CRG Co-ordinating Editor with input from the Editor in Chief and his staff to work with
authors to revise the review and to determine at what stage review should re-enter
editorial process (e.g. it may need to go to peer review again).
6. CRG Managing Editor to republish review when approved for publication by CRG Coordinating Editor and Editor in Chief.
7. Editor in Chief, in consultation with CRG Co-ordinating Editor, the Co-ordinating Editors’
Executive, and publisher, to agree dissemination activities for republished review.
The CRG and the Cochrane Review authors will be supported throughout the process.
Suggestions for improvements
The Editor in Chief welcomes suggestions for improvements to this procedure.
Page 78/187
Complimentary access to selected Wiley journals for Cochrane
Review Groups and Satellites
One member of each Cochrane Review Group and Satellite editorial team is entitled to free
access to over 300 health and medical journals published by Wiley; list available here. Once
enrolled for access, the person will be able to login to Archie and access the journals in the
Wiley Online Library directly. Instructions on how to set this up are available in Archie.
International editorial policies and good practice
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
When possible, the preparation of Cochrane Reviews should aim to adhere to the ICMJE
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
As described on the WAME website, “WAME (pronounced “whammy”) is a nonprofit voluntary
association of editors of peer-reviewed medical journals from countries around the world who
seek to foster international cooperation among and education of medical journal editors.”
Cochrane Review Group Co-ordinating Editors and Managing Editors who have decisionmaking roles within the editorial process (e.g. when drafts are submitted, around the peer
review process, and around publication sign-off) may apply for WAME membership via the
WAME website.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
As described on the COPE website, “COPE is a forum for editors and publishers of peer
reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics. It also advises editors on how to
handle cases of research and publication misconduct.”
The Cochrane Library and all Cochrane Review Groups (for example,
http://publicationethics.org/members/cochrane-ear-nose-and-throat-disorders-group) are
members of COPE. Each Cochrane Review Group is entitled to a passport to access the
password-protected areas of the COPE website. This includes access to the COPE eLearning
modules, such as authorship and plagiarism. Contact Gavin Stewart ([email protected]),
Associate Editor at Wiley to obtain a password to access these.
EQUATOR Network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research
As described on the EQUATOR website, “The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative
Page 79/187
that seeks to enhance reliability and value of medical research literature by promoting
transparent and accurate reporting of research studies.”
The EQUATOR Network Resource Centre includes a comprehensive list of reporting guidelines
as well as other related material.
Managing the publication of gold open access Cochrane Reviews
and Protocols
For Managing Editors
As stated in the open access policy, an author team can choose to pay an article publication
charge (APC) to publish a protocol or review as gold open access (immediate open access
upon payment of an article publication charge). Some author teams will eligible for an APC
waiver.
There are three types of gold open access licence for publication forms available to authors,
known as CC BY (attribution), CC BY-NC (attribution and non-commercial use), and CC BY-NCND (attribution, non-commercial use, and no derivatives). The CC BY option is available only to
authors with a funder mandate to use this licence.
As described in the following two scenarios, and in the gold open access policy, author teams
will contact the Managing Editor to discuss and make arrangements. The Managing Editor will
need to liaise with the David Hives ([email protected]), Senior Production Editor at Wiley.
Two scenarios: payment or waiver
Scenario 1: Author wants to pay the article publication charge (APC) for
gold open access
1. Author team wants to pay the APC for gold open access.
2. Contact author alerts Managing Editor.
3. Managing Editor sends a link to webpage that explains open access licence for
publication form options and payment information to author; Managing Editor to copy in
author team and Wiley Senior Production Editor (David Hives, [email protected]). [See
template email for scenario 2 below to explain process, costs, and mandated roles.]
4. Author lets Managing Editor know which open access licence for publication form the
team would like or is mandated to use.
5. Managing Editor releases agreed gold open access licence for publication form to all
authors. (Link to section in Archie help file.)
6. Archie sends alert to Wiley Senior Production Editor (David Hives, [email protected])
to say open access has been selected. David Hives will manage the payment process
from this point onwards.
7. Review published with open access logo, and relevant copyright and legal information.
Page 80/187
Scenario 2: Author requests a waiver for the gold open access article
publication charge (APC)
1. Author team eligible for gold open access waiver because first author is from a HINARI
A or B country, provided funding for the Cochrane Review does not include funds for the
article publication charge.
2. Contact author alerts Managing Editor.
3. Managing Editor checks eligibility against HINARI list.
4. Managing Editor confirms with author that eligible (or not) and sends a link to webpage
that explains the two OA lfps that the author can select (CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-ND)
and copy in author team. [See template email for scenario 1 below to explain process.]
5. Contact author lets Managing Editor know which open access license for publication
form the team would like to select.
6. Managing Editor releases agreed gold open access licence for publication form to all
authors. (Link to section in Archie help file.)
7. Archie sends alert to Wiley Senior Production Editor (David Hives, [email protected])
to say open access has been selected and is eligible for a waiver (i.e. no payment
required).
8. Review published with open access logo, and relevant copyright and legal information.
Template emails for Managing Editors to send to authors
Scenario 1: author pays APC for gold open access
Dear [contact author], copied to [all authors] and David Hives (Cochrane Projects
Manager/Production Editor, Wiley)
Thank you for letting me know that you would like to arrange for your review to be open access
immediately upon publication (gold open access). Before I can set this up, I need to make you
aware that there is an article publication charge (APC) for gold open access (details and pricing
available here: www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/open-access - APC).
David Hives (Senior Production Editor, Wiley), copied into this email, will follow-up with you
about payment of the APC if you decide to proceed with this and can answer any questions you
may have about the payment process.
If you decide to proceed, you will need to decide which of our two standard Creative Commons
licence for publication forms you and your co-authors would like to select: CC BY-NC or CC BYNC-ND. A third Creative Commons licence, the CC BY licence, is available only to those
authors whose review funding mandates the use of the CC BY licence for publication form.
Please let me know if this applies to your situation along with relevant details from your funder.
Details about the different gold open access licences are available here:
www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/open-access#gold-lfp.
Once you have read the information about the charge for gold open access forms and have let
me know which of the Creative Commons licence for publication forms you would like to use,
Page 81/187
then I will provide you with the agreed form via Archie (when your review is approved for
publication) to enable your review to be open access immediately upon publication.
Best wishes
[Managing Editor]
Scenario 2: author team eligible for an APC waiver
Dear [contact author], copied to [all authors] and David Hives (Cochrane Projects
Manager/Production Editor, Wiley, [email protected])
Thank you for contacting me about making your Cochrane Review, [TITLE], open access
immediately upon publication (gold open access). There is normally an article publication
charge (APC) for this, but I am pleased to confirm that your author team is eligible for a waiver
because the first author is from a country included in the HINARI A or B countries list
(www.who.int/hinari/eligibility/en/), provided funding for your Cochrane Review does not include
funds for the APC. You can read more about our open access policies
here: www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/open-access.
Before I can set this up, you will need to decide which of our two standard Creative Commons
licence for publication forms you and your co-authors would like to select: CC BY-NC or CC BYNC-ND. Details about the different gold open access licences are available here:
www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/open-access#gold-lfp.
Once you let me know which of the Creative Commons licence for publication forms you would
like to use, I will provide you with the agreed form via Archie (when your review is approved for
publication) to enable your review to be open access immediately upon publication.
Best wishes
[Managing Editor]
Information technology
Review Manager (RevMan)
Review Manager (RevMan) is the software used for preparing and maintaining Cochrane
Reviews, and is a mandatory authoring tool for Cochrane Reviews. RevMan is used to prepare
Cochrane Reviews of interventions, methodology, diagnostic test accuracy, and overviews of
reviews.
Page 82/187
RevMan is developed through a continuous process of consultation with its users and Cochrane
methodologists, to support standards and guidelines for Cochrane Reviews, and provides
analytic methods, access to 'online' help, and validation mechanisms.
RevMan is free to use for authors preparing a Cochrane Review or for purely academic use.
Commercial companies may use the software if they purchase a licence. To know about the
prices, to purchase a licence or to order multiple licences, or to access the End-User
Agreement, please refer to the forms available on ims.cochrane.org/revman/licensing.
To download and install RevMan, visit: ims.cochrane.org/revman/download.
A complete RevMan User Guide is also available from the RevMan website:
ims.cochrane.org/revman/documentation.
GRADE
GRADEpro software has been developed by the GRADE working group to support the creation
of Summary of Findings Tables for Cochrane Reviews and Evidence Profiles. More information
about the GRADE approach to assessing the quality of evidence can be found in the Cochrane
Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the GRADE working group website:
www.gradeworkinggroup.org/.
To download and install GRADEpro, visit: ims.cochrane.org/revman/otherresources/gradepro/download.
Archie
Archie is The Cochrane Collaboration’s central server for managing documents and contact
details for Cochrane Entities and contributors. Access is via the Internet (archie.cochrane.org/),
and all users with an account can gain access to content appropriate to their role. The data for
Cochrane Entities and their members are maintained by the Entities themselves. Further
information about Archie is available at ims.cochrane.org/archie.
Managing data in Archie
Table 1 outlines who has responsibility for managing the different types of data stored in Archie.
Details of other responsibilities, such as user support or system management and backup, are
not included here.
Table 1. Managing data in Archie: roles and responsibilities
People
Individuals who do not have access
Responsibilities
Keep their primary Cochrane entity
Page 83/187
Who questions about data
should go to
Primary Cochrane entity
to ‘Archie’
informed about any changes to their
contact details
Standard users (individuals who
have access and can edit their own
contact details)
Update their own contact details
verify that entity affiliation is correct
Entity administrators (who typically
will have a Super User role)
Update their own contact details
Individuals in question, or other
Update their entity’s record
entity administrators
(including its Module text)
Update the entity’s membership/role
information
Update members’ records (if
primary), or notify relevant
administrator (if not primary)
Respond to questions/requests from
other entity administrators
Respond to questions/requests from
entity members
Data administrator1 (staff of the
Central Executive Team)
Tries to ensure that contact details of Particular individuals, Entity
the contact people of all entities are administrators, or System
administrator
available and up-to-date
Updates these contact details if
necessary2
Primary Cochrane entity
Directs questions/requests to the
appropriate Entity
System administrator1 (staff of the
Cochrane IMS team)
Has no data responsibilities
Performs imports and bulk editing
tasks, and generates reports from
the Database
Responds to questions/requests
n/a
1. Data and System administrators may also independently be Entity administrators for specific entities.
2. The type and number of contact persons required will depend on the type of entity, and should be agreed with the Central
Executive Team ([email protected]).
Terms of use
The terms of use are available from the IMS Archie website: ims.cochrane.org/archie/terms-ofuse.
Criteria for inclusion in Archie and/or access to the Entity Website Builder
The Central Executive Team ([email protected]) is responsible for dealing with requests for
inclusion of new entities, and special and temporary groups in Archie, for dealing with requests
for access to the entity website module of the Collaboration's content management system, and
for considering exceptions that do not meet the criteria below.
Page 84/187
Requests from ‘Possible’ entities should be put forward by the Director of the relevant
reference Cochrane Centre, in accordance with established practice. This does not apply to the
Steering Group’s advisory and working groups, which should be given an entry in Archie and/or
access to the entity website module of the Collaboration's content management system on
request.
Criteria for inclusion in Archie
The contact details of intending Cochrane entities that have held at least one exploratory
meeting (attended by a member of the Monitoring and Registration Committee) should be
included in Archie, should be labelled ‘Possible’, and their Super User(s) should have access
to Archie.
The contact details of intending Cochrane entities that have not held at least one exploratory
meeting (attended by a member of the Monitoring and Registration Committee) should not be
included in Archie, and they should not have access to Archie.
Collaboration-wide working groups reporting to the Steering Group should be included in Archie
in the ‘Other’ category, if they request it, and their Super User(s) should have access to Archie.
Criteria for access to the Entity Website Builder
All Cochrane entities officially registered with The Cochrane Collaboration should be given
access to the entity website module of the Collaboration's content management system
([email protected]).
Collaboration-wide working groups reporting to the Steering Group should have access to the
entity website module of the Collaboration's content management system if they request it.
‘Possible’ Cochrane entities (i.e., groups of people who have held an exploratory meeting
attended by a member of the Monitoring and Registration Committee) should have access to
the entity website module of the Collaboration's content management system if they request it,
so that they can prepare a website for use post-registration. The template for their site would
contain a disclaimer stating that the site is ‘in preparation’ and that the group is not yet officially
registered with The Cochrane Collaboration. The ‘Possible’ entity should not be given its final
site address until after it has achieved official registration with The Cochrane Collaboration via
the Monitoring and Registration Committee.
Any group of people not officially registered with The Cochrane Collaboration should not have
access to the entity website module of the Collaboration's content management system, as the
Cochrane logo is an integral feature of this software, and people would be misled into thinking
that the group is officially part of The Cochrane Collaboration.
The Central Executive Team ([email protected]) is responsible for considering exceptions
that do not meet the above criteria, put forward by the Director of the relevant reference
Cochrane Centre.
Page 85/187
Permission to access Collaboration-wide data in Archie
Generally speaking, what a given user can see and do in Archie is governed by a set of
permissions that derive from:
The person’s status as a user of Archie – everyone with a user account in Archie can
see and do certain things;
The person’s Entity Roles – i.e. the roles they have been assigned in a given CRG,
Field, or other Cochrane entity; and
The person’s Document Roles – i.e. the roles they have been assigned in relation to
particular documents in Archie (e.g. the role of Author of a specific review).
All users of Archie who have set up a username and password have the following standard
permissions:
Ability to read and edit their own contact details.
Ability to read (but not to edit) non-hidden contact details for all persons.
Ability to view the titles of all reviews (but not to read or edit their contents).
For more information about permissions in entities, please refer to Archie ‘Help’.
As well as the permissions that users are granted through the standard permissions, and their
entity role permissions, a small number of people who have special roles within the
Collaboration are included in Special User Groups (through Archie’s administrative interface)
that give access to data across all entities.
Special user groups
There are a number of Special User Groups; see Table 2. Each one is listed below with the
permissions associated with the user group, who is responsible for approving membership, and
the default membership, where relevant.
Table 2. Archie Special User Groups
Name
Permissions
Person responsible for
approving membership
Cochrane Register of Studies
(CRS)
Read all draft and
published reviews.
Full access to CRS
Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU)
Read published
Editor in Chief
reviews and reviews
that have been marked
for publication
View Author roles
View entity reports
Page 86/187
CRS Project Manager
Access Monitor
Interface
Access Review
Versions Search
View workflows
ME Support Team
Full control (equivalent ME Support Manager
to being Super User)
for all CRGs
IMS Support Team
Collaboration-wide
access to all user
functions and data
(apart from Files
folders for CET, CEU,
Steering Group,
Steering Group
advisory committees,
Steering Group subcommittees, Entity
Executives and
Committees)
Cannot access
Publisher, Monitor or
Admin tabs in Archie
IMS Team Manager
Monitors
Read published
reviews
View entity reports
Access Monitor
Interface
Access Review
Versions Search
Chief Executive Officer;
Automatically approved
members of this user group:
elected members of the
Steering Group; staff of the
Central Executive Team
(CET); and members of the
Monitoring and Registration
Committee (MaRC)
Podcast editors and
Translators
Read published
Editor in Chief, Translation
reviews and reviews
Working Group
that have been marked
for publication
View Author roles
Read ‘Nearly ready for
publication’ reviews?
Publishers
Read published
Publisher, The Cochrane
reviews and reviews
Library
that have been marked
for publication
View Author roles
Page 87/187
Access to the
Publisher tab (which
gives access to
exporting reviews for
publication in
the Cochrane
Database of
Systematic Reviews)
Research Projects
Allows access to all
published reviews
Read published
versions
Access Review
Version Search
Editor in Chief
Central Executive Team (CET) Edit contact details of all
persons
CET Administrator
SysAdmins
IMS Team Manager
Full control over all functions
and data
Access to the Review Versions Search
The Review Versions Search is a module of Archie that consists of a ’back?end’ where each
published version of a Cochrane Review is stored in searchable form (as part of the Archie
database), and a ’front?end’ interface for performing searches across the reviews and
extracting data. This module has replaced the old data extraction system known as the Parent
Database.
Permission to access the Review Versions Search is given to:
Entity Super Users.
Members of the Monitors, the Cochrane Editorial Unit and the Research Projects user
groups.
Note that people who need to access the Review Versions Search for special purposes can
request to be added to the Research Projects user group by sending a request to the Editor in
Chief and IMS Team Manager. The request must include the following basic information:
Name.
Role within the Collaboration.
Brief description of the project/reason for request.
Duration of requested access.
Page 88/187
Privacy policy
The Archie privacy policy is available on the IMS Archie website: ims.cochrane.org/archie/termsof-use/archie-privacy-policy
Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS)
The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) is both a data repository and a data management tool.
As a ‘meta-register’ or repository for Specialised Registers from all Cochrane groups, including
Cochrane Review Groups, it provides a central storage facility. The Cochrane Central Register
of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) is drawn from the CRS; all Cochrane groups that publish
records in CENTRAL do so via the CRS. The CRS is also a powerful management tool which
enables Cochrane groups to develop their Specialised Registers and to support literature
searching activities for individual Cochrane Reviews.
The CRS automatically synchronises with Review Manager (RevMan), The Cochrane
Collaboration’s systematic review authoring software. This enables linking to Cochrane
Reviews and Protocols within each group’s CRS segment, and automatically matches the
included/excluded studies and their associated reports contained in Cochrane Reviews with
corresponding CRS records. Records exported from the CRS are automatically formatted to
conform to the Cochrane Style Guide, which will improve consistency of reference formatting
within Reviews.
Access to the CRS is currently restricted to Cochrane groups which maintain a Specialised
Register. Groups can choose which of their staff members have access to the CRS and the type
of tasks they can perform.
IMS workflow for Cochrane Reviews
The workflow system in Archie was designed primarily to help Managing Editors and others
working in Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial offices manage their work more efficiently
and effectively. At its most basic level, the workflow system helps CRGs track the progress of
individual reviews through the editorial process and notifies authors, editors, and others involved
in writing and editing reviews when they need to take action. Beyond this, the reports that can
be generated by the system can help CRGs to analyse, reflect on, and improve their own
internal processes. Insights gained in this way could be shared (voluntarily) with other CRGs to
improve practice across the Collaboration.
For further background information, including a description of how the workflow system was
developed, piloted, and rolled out to all CRGs, see ‘Roll-out of workflows to all CRGs’.
Available workflows
Page 89/187
Six workflows are available in Archie:
Title Registration
Protocol Development
Protocol Amendment
Review Development
Review Amendment
Review Update
Detailed flowchart diagrams of the default templates for all six workflows are available. CRGs
can customise the templates in various ways to streamline work and to reflect their own editorial
processes more closely.
Mandatory use of the workflow system
Use of the workflow system in Archie is mandatory for all CRGs. In practical terms, this means:
CRGs are expected to use the Protocol Development, Review Development,and Review
Update workflows to manage, and keep an accurate record of, the editorial processing
of all reviews in the CRG. This means using the workflows as much as possible in a
regular, real?time way (rather than in an administrative, after?the?fact fashion), so that
they reflect what really happens on a day?to?day basis as accurately as possible.
CRGs are strongly encouraged to use the Title Registration workflow in any way they
find helpful, but use of this workflow is optional at this time.
CRGs are encouraged to use the Protocol Amendment and Review Amendment
workflows, particularly in cases where it is important to keep a record of the editorial
processing of significant amendments, such as the correction of a serious error which
results in changes to the conclusions of a review, but use of these workflows is optional
at this time.
User documentation and other resources
A User Guide to Workflows is available on the Cochrane IKMD website.
Managing Editors with questions about the workflow system can contact Managing Editor
Support ([email protected]).
Publication cycle and interaction between Cochrane and publisher
systems
The Cochrane Collaboration manages the content for Cochrane Reviews (including protocols
and updates) via Archie, our Information Management System (IMS). The publisher, John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd., interacts with the IMS via a dedicated ‘publisher’s page’.
Page 90/187
These figures below show the responsibilities of The Cochrane Collaboration and the publisher.
The publication cycle for title registration and the protocol stages is shown in Figure 1, and for
the review stage is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Review cycle: title registration and protocol stage
Responsibilities: ˜? Cochrane personnel; ? Cochrane technology (e.g. Archie, RevMan);
˜? Publisher personnel; ? Publisher technology.
Figure 2. Review cycle: review stage
Page 91/187
Responsibilities: ˜? Cochrane personnel; ? Cochrane technology (e.g. Archie, RevMan); ˜?
Publisher personnel; ? Publisher technology.
Preview published PDF service
The Preview Published PDF service, introduced in January 2012, allows Cochrane authors and
other Archie users to view an advance proof of the PDF version of a Cochrane Review, as it will
appear in the CDSR. The production of the PDF version of Cochrane Reviews (and protocols)
published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is an automated process.
While efforts are made to ensure that the review converts well to a PDF, sometimes there are
problems with the display of the PDF. The guide to using the Preview Published PDF service
(available from http://ims.cochrane.org/archie/documentation) provides tips on how to avoid or
manage any display problems.
Other software resources
In addition to Review Manager, a number of other software tools can be useful in the production
of Cochrane Reviews. The Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department
Page 92/187
(IKMD) has collated a list of the different software systems and present their key features to
enable authors to make decisions about which platform suits their Cochrane Review and their
needs best. See the list: ims.cochrane.org/revman/other-resources.
Ethical considerations
Authorship and contributorship
We are currently working on this section. This section aims to include information on 'Criteria for
authorship', 'Authorship of Cochrane Review updates', 'More than one first author', 'Minimum
number of authors', and 'Contributors listed in acknowledgements'. For more information,
please contact us.
Authors using a group name
Editors or editorial staff authoring Cochrane Reviews from their Cochrane Review Group
Change in authorship
Deceased authors
Authors using a group name
Occasionally Cochrane Reviews are authored by a group of authors who also choose to use a
group name. In this circumstance, list all the individual authors (who meet the authorship
criteria) AND the group name. Separate the list of the individual authors from the group name (if
used) with either “[insert last individual author]; for the [insert group name]” or “[insert last
individual author]; [insert group name]”.
Examples:
Smith A, Davis B, Jones C; for the TOPIC Group. Article title. Etc
Smith A, Davis B, Jones C; TOPIC Group. Article title. Etc
List other contributors who do not meet the authorship criteria in the Acknowledgements
section.
This approach is based on a recommendation by the Council of Science Editors.
Currently in Archie/RevMan, the group author name will need an affiliation and a licence for
publication form. Managing Editors should assign the Contact Person’s affiliation for the group
name, ask the Contact Person to complete the licence for publication form, and not complete a
declarations of interest form.
Editors or editorial staff authoring Cochrane Reviews from their
Page 93/187
Cochrane Review Group
Editors or editorial staff authoring Cochrane Reviews from their Cochrane Review Group (CRG)
must not be involved in editorial decisions about the Cochrane Review. Co-ordinating Editors
who author a Cochrane Review from their CRG must ask another Editor (or the Editor in Chief)
to make editorial decisions about the review.
Change in authorship
Authors requesting a change in authorship (modify the order, remove, or add an author) must
contact the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) Managing Editor. In line with the recommendations
of COPE flowcharts, the CRG will require all authors to agree with the modification (usually by
asking the authors to reply to an email explaining the change).
Deceased authors
As a general guideline, where an author made a substantial contribution to a protocol or review
(sufficient to warrant authorship) but died before publication, and the co-authors feel it is
appropriate to include the deceased author on the by-line, then editorial teams could permit
inclusion of the author on the by-line until the review is updated.
The living authors alternatively may choose to provide an acknowledgment or dedication to their
colleague’s contribution.
If the deceased author also was the contact person for a protocol or review, a new contact
person must be identified.
If the deceased author is listed on the by-line
Contributorship statement: This should inform readers that the author is deceased, when the
author died (e.g. month and year), the author’s contribution to the protocol or review, and
whether the living authors made substantive changes to the review beyond the deceased
author’s contribution.
Licence for publication form: No licence for publication form is required for the deceased
author, as advised by our publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Declarations of interest: Add the following statement to this section in the review, “Author
deceased; declarations of interest published in the protocol: “[copy and paste here]”. For a
protocol, insert the text, “Author deceased; no declarations of interest available” or “Author
deceased; [declarations of interest if provided before the author died]”. The ‘declarations of
interest’ form does not need to be completed for the deceased author.
Contact details: Modify contact details so that the published protocol or review will note that
the author is deceased and include the name, institution, and country that were correct before
Page 94/187
they died, delete the rest of their contact details, and put ‘Deceased’ in the footnote field of the
author contact details in the review. This is a review-level annotation. If the author in question is
included on the author line of more than one review, the same footnote should be included in
each of the reviews they authored
Practical guidance for making changes to the review file
Managing Editors need to make the following changes:
(1) Insert ‘Deceased’ (without parentheses) in the footnote field of the author’s contact details
within the RevMan file of the review. It is important to note that this is a review-level annotation,
so if the deceased author is included on the by-line of other reviews, the same footnote should
be included in the RevMan file of each review they authored. To add the footnote, right-click on
the author’s name in RevMan and click Edit to reveal and complete the ‘Footnote:’ field (text
box at the bottom of the editing screen).
(2) Republish with the following What’s New events: for a Cochrane Review, select Amended
AND New Citation; for a protocol, select Amended AND New Citation: No Major Change.
(3) "Change the entity Role for the deceased author to Inactive. To do this open the author's
Properties sheet, click on the Roles tab, select Edit and untick the box next to Active. In the
Specification field, insert 'Deceased'. Note that when all the person’s entity Roles have been
made Inactive, the full Person record will automatically be set to Inactive. If you are the Primary
entity for the deceased author, please delete their email address from their Archie record."
Conflicts of interest and Cochrane Reviews
May 2014: This policy, and Cochrane's policy relating to Cochrane groups has been updated to
incorporate the Commercial Sponsorship policy agreed by the Steering Group in April 2014.
Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy is in two parts: one for Cochrane Reviews (below) and one
for Cochrane groups (included in the Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual).
1. Introduction
1.1. General principle
While Cochrane has adopted the uniform requirements for declaration of conflicts of interests
framework produced by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Cochrane and
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) differ from many journals in two ways:
(1) certain types of sponsorship are forbidden; and (2) we ask for disclosure of conflicts of
interests at the beginning of a review process (when submitting a Review Proposal Form (title
registration form). Such declarations may be managed within the Cochrane Review Group
processes or be referred to the Funding Arbiter for discussion and decision-making if there are
any doubts about how the policy should be applied.
Page 95/187
Independence: Cochrane Reviews must be independent of conflicts of interest associated with
commercial sponsorship and should be conducted by people or organisations that are free of
such bias.
Free from interference: The process for conducting Cochrane Reviews and the Cochrane
groups and contributors responsible from producing Cochrane Reviews should operate free
from interference.
Assurance: Users of Cochrane Reviews should be assured that Cochrane Reviews are
produced in an independent manner.
See the Funding Arbiter information about the role of the Funding Arbiter and the Funding
Arbitration Panel in the implementation and for clarifications or guidance on funding issues.
1.2. Definition
‘Commercial sponsor or source’: any for-profit manufacturer or any other for-profit source with a
real or potential vested interest in the findings of a specific Cochrane Review.
This definition is not intended to include government departments, not-for-profit medical
insurance companies, and health management organisations; nor for-profit companies that do
not have real or potential vested interests in Cochrane Reviews (e.g. banks). All funders should
be considered, however, when assessing any declared conflicts of interests from authors or
potential authors.
2. Authors of Cochrane Reviews
All links between Cochrane authors and commercial sponsorship or sources must be disclosed,
so that Cochrane users have confidence in the process for the disclosure and management of
potential commercial conflicts of interest.
When completing a Research Proposal Form (title registration form), Cochrane authors should
declare their conflicts of interest using Cochrane’s disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
form.
Commercial interests that should be declared include, but are not limited to: income from private
clinical practice (if relevant to the topic); ownership of stocks related to industry; legal advice
related to the topic; consultancies; honoraria; fellowships; speaker’s fees; involvement in
primary research in the subject area of their review; funding for primary research in the subject
area of the review; and any other interests that others may judge relevant. Employment in a
clinical speciality relevant to the Cochrane Review should be declared in the interests of
transparency, but this does not prevent an individual from being a review author, including
taking on the role of lead (first) author. In addition, for calculating whether a team has a majority
of non-conflicted authors, if this was the only declared interest, an author who was employed in
a clinical speciality would count as non-conflicted.
Page 96/187
Authors of Cochrane Reviews must complete a ‘declarations of interest’ form before
publication of the protocol, review, update, and any amendment resulting in a new citation, and
the declarations should be reviewed by the Managing Editor and Co-ordinating Editor as
appropriate.
2.1. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors
The form used by Cochrane is based on the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of
Interest.
This form has five sections, as described in Table 1. Where there are potential conflicts of
interest, authors must declare this information and provide details.
Table 1. Sections in Cochrane's disclosure of potential conflicts of interest forma
Section
Heading
Content
1
Identifying information
This information, including the
Cochrane Protocol or Review title,
Author(s), Cochrane Review Group,
and Cochrane Review ID, is added
automatically.
2
The work under consideration for
publication
This section asks for information
about the work that you have
submitted for publication. The time
frame for this reporting is that of the
work itself, from the initial conception
and planning to the present.
The requested information is about
resources that you received, either
directly or indirectly (via your
institution), to enable you to complete
the work. Checking "No" means that
you did the work without receiving
any financial support from any third
party -- that is, the work was
supported by funds from the same
institution that pays your salary and
that institution did not receive thirdparty funds with which to pay you. If
you or your institution received funds
from a third party to support the
work, such as a government granting
agency, charitable foundation or
commercial sponsor, check "Yes".
Then complete the appropriate boxes
to indicate the type of support and
whether the payment went to you, or
to your institution, or both.
Page 97/187
3
Relevant financial activities outside
the submitted work
This section asks about your
financial relationships with entities in
the bio-medical arena that could be
perceived to influence, or that give
the appearance of potentially
influencing, what you wrote in the
submitted work.
You should disclose interactions with
ANY entity that could be considered
broadly relevant to the work. For
example, if your article is about
testing an epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung
cancer, you should report all
associations with entities pursuing
diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in
cancer in general, not just in the area
of EGFR or lung cancer.
Report all sources of revenue paid
(or promised to be paid) directly to
you or your institution on your behalf
over the 36 months prior to
submission of the work. This should
include all monies from sources with
relevance to the submitted work, not
just monies from the entity that
sponsored the research.
Please note that your interactions
with the work's sponsor that are
outside the submitted work should
also be listed here. If there is any
question, it is usually better to
disclose a relationship than not to do
so.
For grants you have received for
work outside the submitted work, you
should disclose support ONLY from
entities that could be perceived to be
affected financially by the published
work, such as drug companies, or
foundations supported by entities
that could be perceived to have a
financial stake in the outcome. Public
funding sources, such as
government agencies, charitable
foundations or academic institutions,
need not be disclosed. For example,
if a government agency sponsored a
study in which you have been
Page 98/187
involved and drugs were provided by
a pharmaceutical company, you
need only list the pharmaceutical
company.
4
Other relationships
Use this section to report other
relationships or activities that readers
could perceive to have influenced, or
that give the appearance of
potentially influencing, what you
wrote in the submitted work.
5
Declarations of interest statement
Use this section to write your
declarations of interest statement for
inclusion in the review.
a
Copied directly from the form, which is based on the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest.
2.2. If a potential conflict of interest is declared
On receipt, the relevant Cochrane Review Group will assess whether an author may have a
conflict of interest that, as described in this policy, would prohibit them from participating in the
review team.
All potentially important conflicts (as described in the paragraphs above) should be referred to
the Funding Arbiter unless it is clear that the conflicts prohibit the author or team from further
involvement (e.g. the author is directly employed by a commercial organisation with an interest
in the intervention or holds a patent relating to the intervention) or that the conflicts do not
prohibit the author or team from further involvement (e.g, employment in a relevant clinical
speciality).
For conflicts other than those related to direct employment, review funding and the holding of
patents, there must be a majority of non-conflicted authors for any particular review and the lead
(first) author must have no conflicts. For example, if two authors in a review team have received
travel grants from a commercial interest, there must be at least three other non-conflicted
authors and the lead (first) author must have no conflicts.
2.2.1. Payment or services from a third party
Cochrane Reviews cannot be funded or conducted by commercial sponsors or commercial
sources with a real or potential vested interest in the findings of a specific review.
2.2.2. Employment
Individuals who are employed by a company that has a real or potential financial interest in the
outcome of the Cochrane Review (including but not limited to drug companies or medical device
manufacturers), or who hold or have applied for a patent related to the Cochrane Review are
prohibited from being Cochrane Review authors. In most cases, employment would be
characterised by the affiliation statement made by the author at the title registration, protocol, or
Page 99/187
review stage of the Cochrane Review. Any questions about what constitutes "employment by a
company with a financial interest” should be referred to the Funding Arbiter.
Health professionals might wish to evaluate an element of their practice. Any such employment
should be declared. This does not prevent someone from being a review author and if this
declared conflict is in isolation such an individual is counted as non-conflicted from the
perspective of the need to have a majority of non-conflicted authors. Please note that this does
not apply to the situation of someone who is evaluating a practice that they have been
responsible for developing, or who has a specific commercial interest in disseminating this
intervention to other practitioners.
2.2.3. Financial interest or support
Authors who in the last three years have received financial support from commercial sponsors
or sources who have a real or potential financial interest in the findings of the Cochrane Review,
but who are not covered by the restriction above may need review by the Funding Arbiter panel.
Such financial support may include remuneration from a consultancy, grants, fees, fellowships,
support for sabbaticals, royalties, stocks from pharmaceutical companies, advisory board
membership, or otherwise. In such cases, at the Funding Arbiter’s discretion, and only where a
majority of the review authors and lead author have no relevant conflicts of interests, it may be
possible for an author who has a declared interest as listed in the previous sentence to be a
Cochrane Review author.
2.2.4. Cochrane Review author also an author on a study listed in the review
Cochrane authors who include primary studies (which they had conducted) in their Cochrane
Review should declare this in the review in the ‘Declarations of interest’ section. Authors of
primary studies should not extract data from their own study or studies. Instead, another
author(s) or an editor(s) should extract these data, and check the interpretation against the
study report and any available study registration details or protocol.
Also, the relevant authorship of the primary studies should be disclosed in
Cochrane's disclosure of potential conflicts of interest form and therefore the Cochrane Review.
Clarification (October 2014): Authors who have, within the past three years, conducted research
funded by commercial sponsors should also declare this, but this will not in isolation constitute a
barrier to remaining an author and such authors will count as non-conflicted for the purposes of
creating a majority of non-conflicted authors.
2.2.5. Editors or editorial staff authoring Cochrane Reviews from their Cochrane Review
Groups
See text in the 'authorship and contributorship' section.
3. Editors and editorial staff within Cochrane Review Groups
Page 100/187
Editors and the editorial team of each Cochrane Review Group must disclose any potential
conflict of interest that they might have, both on their module published in the ‘About The
Cochrane Collaboration’ database in the Cochrane Library and on the Cochrane Review Group
website.
Editors with conflicts of interest with a given product/drug/non-drug intervention should not
undertake peer review or be a contact editor, or provide sign-off on a Cochrane Review that
involves that product, drug, non-drug intervention, or a competing intervention. Co-ordinating
Editors with conflicts of interest should assign the relevant Cochrane Review to another editor
within their group.
Editors are prohibited from being employees of a pharmaceutical company or medical device
manufacturer.
Employment in a clinical speciality relevant to the Cochrane Review should be declared in the
interests of transparency, but this does not prevent an individual from being a review editor.
The Co-ordinating Editors' conflict of interest declaration statements, updated annually
(between 1 January and 31 March), are available here.
4. Peer reviewers
Peer reviewers should be asked to declare conflicts of interest using Cochrane’s disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest form.
Employment in a speciality relevant to the Cochrane Review should be declared in the interests
of transparency, but this does not prevent an individual from being a peer reviewer.
People with a direct financial interest in a particular intervention should not be involved in a
review of that intervention as peer reviewers.
5. Funders of Cochrane Reviews
Cochrane Reviews are commonly funded by granting bodies. Granting bodies are not permitted
to interfere in the design and release of reviews and that funding is transparently declared:
Funders of Cochrane Reviews cannot interfere with the design or conduct of reviews.
Funders cannot delay or prevent the publication of a Cochrane Protocol, Review, or its
update.
Funding for the Cochrane Review should be declared in the 'Sources of support' section
of the review, which should include reference to the role of any sponsors.
6. Derivative products
The development of derivative products from Cochrane Reviews is the responsibility of
Page 101/187
Cochrane Trading Company, supported by the Editor in Chief and the Steering Group.
In developing derivative products, these bodies will adhere to the conflict of interest policies
stated in this policy for Cochrane Reviews and in the policy for Cochrane groups (included in
the Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual).
7. Royalties from reprints of Cochrane Reviews
Authors and Cochrane Review Groups should not receive royalties on sales of reprints of their
Cochrane Reviews, since these sales are likely to have been made to commercial sources and
might, therefore, be assumed to be equivalent to direct sponsorship of the Cochrane Review or
Group. Therefore, the current policy that royalties on reprint sales go to The Cochrane
Collaboration centrally, via the Collaboration Trading Company, will continue.
8. If a Cochrane Review Group has questions about conflict of
interest
8.1. Funding Arbiter
The Funding Arbiter is accountable to the Cochrane Steering Group and convenes a standing
panel of four to give guidance on difficult cases. See the Funding Arbiter page {insert hyperlink}
for information about the role of the Funding Arbiter and the Funding Arbitration Panel and to
refer a conflict of interest issue.
8.2. Scenarios and actions for editorial teams and authors
A list of potential conflict of interest scenarios and actions is available here.
Implementing the conflict of interest policy in practice
Potential scenarios and actions for editorial teams and authors
Date: March 2015
Authors: David Tovey, Ruth Foxlee, Harriet MacLehose; Cochrane Editorial Unit
In 2014, Cochrane engaged Dr Donna Odierna (University of California San Francisco) to
undertake an audit of compliance with Cochrane conflict of interest (COI) policy. In the course of
managing the output of that project, the Cochrane Editorial Unit team identified some common
examples where application of Cochrane’s policy was either unclear or disputed. We have
grouped the examples into five categories:
Page 102/187
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Author employment
Other financial support for authors from commercial sponsors or sources
Funding or conduct by commercial sponsors or sources
Author involvement in the conduct of included trials
Review dissemination
All the examples shown below should be considered in the context of the information provided
in the Conflicts of interest and Cochrane Reviews section of the Editorial Publishing Policy
Resource:
1. A ‘commercial sponsor or source’ is defined as any for-profit manufacturer or any other
for-profit source with a real or potential vested interest in the findings of a specific
review
2. Authors who in the last 3 years have received financial support from commercial
sponsors or sources with a real or potential financial interest in the findings of the
review, should declare these interests at the earliest possible stage in the editorial
process. Such financial support may include remuneration from a consultancy, grants,
fees, fellowships, support for sabbaticals, royalties, stocks from pharmaceutical
companies, advisory board membership or otherwise. In such cases, at the funding
arbiter’s discretion, and only where a majority of the review authors and lead
author have no relevant COIs, it may be possible for an author who has a declared
interest as listed in the previous sentence to be a Cochrane review author.
3. The ‘lead author’ is the first named author in the review by-line.
1. Author employment
No.
Scenario
Complies with policy?
Actio
1
An author(s) is employed by a
commercial sponsor that does
not produce the intervention
covered in the review nor any
competing intervention.
Unclear
Refer
onus i
justify
does n
2
An author(s) is employed by a No
commercial sponsor that does
not produce the intervention
covered in the review but does
produce a competing
intervention.
Revie
conflic
refer t
3
An author(s) goes to work for
commercial sponsor at some
point during the preparation of
the protocol or review.
Autho
work o
Fundi
conce
have i
such t
Page 103/187
No
publis
4
An author(s) goes to work for
commercial sponsor after the
review is published.
Unclear
Seek
autho
was k
If not,
remov
If the
the m
get de
Arbite
autho
5
An author(s) is employed by an Yes
organisation that conducts
clinical trials, some of which are
funded by a commercial
sponsor with an interest in the
intervention under investigation.
None.
6
An author(s) was paid through
a commercially-funded clinical
fellowship, with no mention of
what restriction applied to the
fellowship.
In mo
compl
reque
autho
restric
fellow
review
(altho
If rest
Arbite
of the
requir
review
Unclear
2. Other financial support for author(s) from commercial sponsors or
sources
No.
Scenario
7
50% or more of the author(s)
No
have ties to commercial
sponsors or sources other than
being paid directly (e.g.
consultancy, grants, fees,
Page 104/187
Complies with policy?
Acti
Auth
cann
lead
majo
auth
fellowships, support for
sabbaticals, travel bursary, etc.)
If ha
have
proc
Fun
8
Research grants and/or
honoraria from commercial
sponsors or sources are
received by research
accounts/groups to which an
author(s) belongs, but are not
received directly by the
author(s).
Unclear
Refe
9
An author(s) attended an
academic programme
sponsored by a commercial
sponsor.
Unclear
If ac
as d
actio
If att
cons
revie
majo
conf
Fun
10
An author(s) is recipient of a
Yes
fellowship or studentship that is
partially funded by a commercial
sponsor.
Non
11
Only one of several author(s) on Unclear
the review (i.e. less than 50%)
acted as a consultant for the
manufacturer of one of the
interventions being considered
in the review.
If no
com
An author(s) who declares no
Unclear
specific conflicts of interest is
the partner of another author(s)
on the review who does declare
potential conflicts.
Refe
auth
are
auth
conf
does
12
If firs
and
first
3. Funding or conduct by commercial sponsors or sources
No.
Issue
Complies with policy?
Actio
13
The original review was
supported by an unrestricted
Yes
None
Page 105/187
educational grant from a
commercial sponsor and
published in a non-Cochrane
journal. It was subsequently
converted to a Cochrane
Review and then updated
without the support of any
commercial sponsor.
14
The original review was
Unclear
conducted as part of a guideline
development project, which was
supported through an
unrestricted educational grant
from a commercial sponsor,
and then updated with the
support of a health charity.
If hea
asso
spon
autho
15
The original review was
supported by a commercial
sponsor but was subsequently
updated without any further
support from commercial
sources.
Refe
woul
but s
safe.
shou
ackn
16
The original review was
Unclear
supported through an
unrestricted grant from a
commercial sponsor; however
this grant was used to support
research on a range of
treatment options, not just those
produced by the commercial
sponsor. The update is
proceeding without commercial
support.
Refe
full d
funde
inform
aspe
were
17
Financial support for the original Unclear
review was provided by a
commercial sponsor through an
unrestricted educational grant
(with no mention of whether the
subsequent update was carried
out without the support of any
commercial sponsor).
Refe
only
was
comm
18
One source of support listed is
If aut
Page 106/187
Unclear
Unclear
If hea
with
clarif
comp
doub
from a commercial organisation
but not one with an obvious
interest in the intervention being
considered.
justif
is no
comp
If aut
sourc
confl
4. Author(s) involvement in the conduct of included trials
No.
Issue
Complies with policy?
19
An author(s) conducted a study Yes
that was funded by the
manufacturer of intervention(s)
being considered.
None
decla
appra
inclu
not re
extra
20
An author(s) conducted an
Yes
investigator-led RCT that
evaluated the intervention of
interest in a related condition
(not the condition considered in
the review), for which financial
support was provided by a
manufacturer of the
intervention(s) being
considered.
None
autho
studi
bias,
for da
confl
cons
when
there
confl
21
An author(s) is undertaking a
trial that would possibly been
eligible for inclusion in the
review at the time of writing.
Yes
None
autho
studi
bias,
for da
confl
coun
deter
majo
autho
22
After the review was published Yes
an author(s) received funding
from a manufacturer of the
intervention(s) being considered
to conduct an investigator-led
study in that same area.
None
subs
inclu
the re
out in
23
An author(s) was involved in the Yes
recruitment of patients into
None
autho
Page 107/187
Actio
clinical trials funded by a
commercial sponsor.
studi
bias,
for da
confl
coun
deter
majo
autho
5. Review dissemination
No.
Issue
Complies with policy?
24
The author(s) received funding Yes
from a manufacturer of the
intervention being considered to
disseminate the findings of the
original review (with no mention
of whether the subsequent
update was carried out without
any commercial sponsor
involvement)
None
revie
upda
cons
confl
autho
fundi
team
25
On completion of the review,
the author(s) received funding
for translation of the review
from a manufacturer of the
intervention(s) under
investigation.
None
revie
upda
cons
confl
autho
fundi
team
Yes
Libel
Our publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, has information available on “Libel and slander”.
Contact David Tovey ([email protected]), Editor in Chief, for further information or if you
need to raise a concern.
Plagiarism
1. Policy statement
2. Special circumstances for Cochrane Systematic Reviews
3. Avoiding plagiarism
3.1. Use of text templates
Page 108/187
Actio
3.2. Cochrane Overviews of reviews (Cochrane Overviews)
4. Detecting plagiarism using CrossCheck
4.1. Getting started with CrossCheck
4.2. What and when to check
4.3. How to check
4.4. CrossCheck reports
4.5. Figures and images
5. What editorial teams should do in cases of suspected plagiarism
5.1. Substantial and/or repeat instances of plagiarism
5.2. Recording information about cases of suspected plagiarism in Archie
6. Authors reusing text from their published works
7. Managing reports of suspected plagiarism in articles published in the CDSR
8. About this policy
1. Policy statement
The Cochrane Collaboration takes measures to prevent, detect, and address plagiarised
content in Cochrane Reviews. See Box 1 for a definition of plagiarism.
Box 1. Definition of plagiarism
“Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without
attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The
intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies
whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board
applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).”
Source: www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals#plagiarism
This policy relates to the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews
(MECIR) reporting standard 22
(www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/mecir).
2. Special circumstances for Cochrane Systematic Reviews
There are special circumstances when similarity in text is expected in Cochrane Systematic
Reviews by the nature of the type of work. These special circumstances may result in text
similarity software, such as CrossCheck (Table 1), finding a high level of similarity of the
Cochrane Review text with text from other article(s). High levels of similarity would not always
be considered plagiarism.
Table 1. Special circumstances that will generate high levels of text similarity between
Cochrane Systematic Reviews, versions of Cochrane Systematic Reviews, and other
articles
Special circumstance
Text similarity expected?
Similar methods sections
Yes, Cochrane Reviews can be expected to have a high
percentage of overlap in the methods section because of
Page 109/187
standardized methods. This is unlikely to cause concern
unless text is copied verbatim and without correct citation
Cochrane Review Group-specific template used for text
in one or more sections
Yes, if an author uses a Cochrane Review Group
template for one or more sections (e.g. background,
methods), and states that a template has been used, a
high percentage of overlap would be expected and
should not cause concern
See ‘Use of text templates’ below for details
Protocol to review, review to update, etc.
Yes, a high percentage of overlap would be expected
between certain sections of these versions (e.g.
background, methods) and should not cause concern
Generic protocol
(i.e. two or more reviews based on one protocol)
Yes, a high percentage of overlap would be expected
between certain sections of the protocol and the reviews
that follow the protocol (e.g. background, methods). This
should not cause concern, but it should be clear to the
reader that the same text is used across a series of
linked reviews
Yes, some overlap would be expected between the
Split and merged reviews
(i.e. review either split into two or more reviews, or two or different reviews. This should not cause concern, but it
should be clear to the reader that the same text is used
more reviews are combined into one review)
across a series of linked reviews
Similarities with published studies (e.g. trials described in Yes, some overlap would be accepted here. Authors
the characteristics tables/risk of bias tables)
should follow the guidance (see ‘Avoiding plagiarism’) to
avoid the possibility of plagiarism
Co-publication of a Cochrane Review (including Protocol Yes, a high level of overlap would be expected. This
and Updates) or republication in official Cochrane
should not cause concern as long as the co-publication
journals or derivative products
was agreed according to the
policy (www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policyresource/co-publication)
A non-Cochrane systematic review is converted to a
Cochrane Review
Yes, a high level of overlap may be expected. This
should not cause concern as long as the co-publication
was agreed according to the
policy (www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policyresource/scenarios-addressedpolicy#ConvertingToCochrane)
3. Avoiding plagiarism
A Cochrane Review is expected to be an original piece of academic work produced by the listed
authors. Material copied from other sources may be used but should always be acknowledged.
If direct quotes of more than a few words of original material are included, these should
generally be indicated both by using quotation marks and by citing the source (citation alone is
not enough). See examples in Table 2.
Table 2. Examples of correct citation
Citing
The study was successful (Griffin 1990); it
Page 110/187
confirmed previous findings (Howes 1995).
Paraphrasing: using own words and making the
source clear from the reference
It is the responsibility of systematic review authors
to ensure the review conforms to Cochrane
reporting guidelines including: declaring any
potential conflicts of interest, that the review is free
from plagiarised material and that all contributors
are acknowledged (Wager 2011).
Using text verbatim
Wager and colleagues proposed that authors should
“...ensure that contributors are properly
acknowledged, that potential conflicts of interest are
declared, and that the review does not contain
plagiarized material” (Wager 2011).
In Table 2, we state “It is the responsibility of systematic review authors to ensure the review
conforms to Cochrane reporting guidelines including... (Wager 2011).” These are our own
words, and the source is clear from the reference. If we wanted instead to use a sentence
directly from the Wager paper, we would have had to do so by using quotation marks,
constructing a different sentence citing the reference in brackets immediately afterwards. For
example:
Wager and Wiffen proposed that authors should “...ensure that contributors are properly
acknowledged, that potential conflicts of interest are declared, and that the review does not
contain plagiarized material” (Wager 2011).
Citations should be placed as close as possible to the quotation or statement from the original
source. For example, if a paragraph includes two quotations, the appropriate citation should be
inserted immediately after the relevant quotation and not placed together at the end of the
paragraph or section. See the Cochrane Style Guide for information about references and citing
references in the text.
Cochrane Review Groups are encouraged to bring the plagiarism policy to the attention of
authors early in the review development cycle, such as when authors propose a title for a
Cochrane Review.
3.1. Use of text templates
As Cochrane Review Groups have evolved, there has been an increasing use of templates that
ensure methods are clearly presented. However, the result is that reviews may include material
that is similar or identical to that in other reviews, to an extent that might not be permissible in
articles published in other journals. For example, reviews may use standard methods resulting
in similar text and some Cochrane Review Groups encourage the use of standard introductory
passages (e.g. to describe a condition or intervention).
Therefore, protocols and reviews that include template text should include a statement
Page 111/187
acknowledging the use of templates, such as “The background and methods section of this
protocol/review is based on a standard template used by Cochrane [insert name] Review
Group”. This statement may be appropriate to include in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section.
3.2. Cochrane Overviews of reviews (Cochrane Overviews)
“Cochrane Overviews of reviews (Cochrane Overviews) are Cochrane Reviews designed to
compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into one accessible and
usable document” (see the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention,
Chapter 22). Authors may wish to reuse text from the original systematic reviews in a Cochrane
Overview. In this circumstance, authors should follow the standard guidance to reference
source material. A high percentage of overlap with other source content (e.g. a Cochrane
Review) may occur, but will not cause concern if the text has been cited appropriately.
4. Detecting plagiarism using CrossCheck
CrossCheck is a partnership between CrossRef, a not-for-profit collaboration between
publishers, and iParadigm’s text matching software, iThenticate. CrossCheck provides an
extensive database of scientific, technical, and medical content (including material behind
journal paywalls which would not be available from a simple internet search). When a document
is checked in CrossCheck, it is compared with the content of this database, which is made up of
published and unpublished documents, including over 40 million research articles, conference
proceedings, and e-books from scientific, technical, and medical publishing.
4.1. Getting started with CrossCheck
Cochrane Review Groups are encouraged to use CrossCheck through the licence held by the
publisher of The Cochrane Library, John Wiley & Sons. Wiley provides each Cochrane Review
Group with access to CrossCheck (free of charge). Managing Editors can contact Gavin Stewart
([email protected]; Associate Editor, Wiley) for a user name and password.
4.2. What and when to check
Cochrane Review Groups are encouraged to, at minimum, check at least a portion of text for all
protocols and reviews (including updates) when initially submitted to the Cochrane Review
Group.
There are different stages in the editorial process where CrossCheck screening could occur
(see Table 3). Cochrane Review Groups may wish to screen more than once, or they may wish
to screen at a particular time, such as before peer review, or where the writing styles varies
within a single document.
Table 3. Different stages in the editorial process where CrossCheck screening could
occur
Page 112/187
Stage
Document
Recommended sections to screena
Title
All Review Proposal Forms
All text excluding references
Protocol
Initial submission of protocol
Backgroundb, Methodsb
All resubmissions of revised protocols As above
Substantively updated protocols (i.e. As above
new citation version)
Review
Final version for publication
Screening not recommended at this
stage
Initial submission of review
Abstract, Plain language summary,
Backgroundb, Methodsb, Results,
Discussion, Authors’ conclusions
Omit (1) matches to the published
protocol from the similarity report and
(2) references
All resubmissions of revised reviews; Where changes have been made to
or review ‘amendments’
the text
Updates (initial version and revisions) Abstract, Plain language summary,
Backgroundb, Methodsb, Results,
Discussion, Authors’ conclusions
Omit (1) matches to the published
protocol; (2) published previous
versions of the review from the
similarity reportc; and (3) references
Final version for publication
Screening not recommended at this
stage
a
While it is possible to check an entire document for similar text, sections of a Cochrane Review, such as the
methods, characteristics of studies tables, and references sections, are likely to give a high similarity score due to
the nature of their content.
b
Some Cochrane Review Groups may recommend the use of template text for the Background or Methods
section. If so, the authors should have made a note of this within the protocol or review. See Section 2 (‘Special
circumstances for Cochrane Systematic Reviews’) for more information.
c
It is possible to do this in CrossCheck; see Table 5.
4.3. How to check
CrossCheck provides a similarity score, which indicates the total amount of text that matches
text in other sources. There are two steps to using CrossCheck: (1) an automated step in which
CrossCheck runs the online comparison; and (2) a manual step for someone in the Cochrane
Review Group to interpret the report results and decide on next steps; see Table 4. These two
steps combined can take from 5 minutes to 2 hours, but it is usually around 15 minutes.
CrossCheck provides a list of resources for using the software:
www.ithenticate.com/resources/customer-training/.
Page 113/187
Table 4. Overview of CrossCheck process
Automatic process
CrossCheck finds and highlights overlapping text
between manuscript and published material
A similarity score is generated
Manual process
CrossCheck report reviewed
Determine severity of plagiarism
Decide on action to be taken
Once logged into CrossCheck, there is the option to submit different file types for screening. It is
not recommended to submit the full version of the document because it may be very long and
will include sections that have little value in being screened (e.g. references); see Table 3.
Therefore it may be easier to select specific sections of the protocol or review to be screened.
There are three possible approaches:
1. Prepare a new document by cutting and pasting specific sections of text into a new
document and save as one of the following file types: plain text, MS Word, PDF, RTF,
PostScript, HTML, or XML.
2. Use the Cut and Paste upload option in CrossCheck.
3. In RevMan and if you have software installed to print to PDF, select the required
sections and print and save as a non-RevMan PDF file type. CrossCheck does not
accept RevMan file types (i.e. *.rm).
By default, CrossCheck includes the optional settings to exclude quotes (i.e. text within
quotation marks), reference lists, and/or “small matches” of text to avoid false positives in the
similarity index. However, while it is possible to request references to be excluded from
comparison using CrossCheck, this does not always happen and it is preferable to upload a file
without this section. It is not always advisable to exclude “small matches” to text because small
matches could be direct quotes that need quotation marks and citations.
CrossCheck has an option to include a simultaneous Internet search (called “websearch” in
CrossCheck) in addition to the standard iThenticate database search. This extends the
CrossCheck comparison to include content not included in the iThenticate database, such as
Wikipedia, and presents the collated results. This option should be used routinely.
When matches are identified in a report, CrossCheck has an option to exclude one or more
matching sources. As described in Table 1, a high percentage of overlap would be expected
between a protocol and review, and a review and an update. This functionality allows the user
to exclude the protocol or original review, for example. This functionality may become less
useful as the number of times a Cochrane Review is updated as the number of exclusions that
need to be made increases. See Table 5 for the types of CrossCheck reports where this
functionality is available.
Cochrane Review Groups should agree which editorial staff member(s) should be responsible
Page 114/187
for running the CrossCheck reports, interpreting the results, and deciding on next steps. For
example, an Assistant Managing Editor/Managing Editor, Trials Search Co-ordinator or
administrative assistant could run a document through CrossCheck and generate a report. The
results of the report should be considered by the Cochrane Review Group’s Managing Editor
and/or Co-ordinating Editor and any action to be taken decided upon.
4.4. CrossCheck reports
There are different modes of reporting in CrossCheck (see Table 5) some of which display
different information. The Document Viewer is the default setting and shows the best matches
for text in a submitted document (Figure 1). The Document Viewer report has two pieces of
information that will guide the editorial team to have no cause for concern or to decide if any
action is needed:
It highlights any overlapping text and shows you where it comes from, and how many
words are overlapping in each instance (number of words is more informative than the
percentage overlap, which is also provided). The editorial team can review all instances
within the document.
The Document Viewer report will include a similarity index score. CrossCheck’s
similarity index should not be used as an absolute measure of whether significant
overlap exists, but rather as a signal to have a closer look at the text. The score is a
percentage of text that it has identified as an overlap with one or more other sources. A
low score means less overlap and a high score means more overlap.
For further information on using CrossCheck, please see the official CrossCheck user manual.
An additional user guide has been prepared by IEEE. For further information about the similarity
score, see the iThenticate website.
Table 5. Types of CrossCheck reports (www.ithenticate.com/training/dv-walkthrough)
Document Viewer
Default report; a detailed report that uses colour coding
to compare texts, and hyperlinks to allows user to review
matches. You can exclude particular sources in this
mode.
Similarity report
Displays matching sources side-by-side with sampled
text. You can exclude particular sources in this mode.
Content tracking
Enables users to see if matches were manually
excluded, or if there are more than one match for the
sample, and ranking of proportional match in the report.
You can exclude particular sources in this mode.
Summary report
Same information as the similarity report, but it displays
matching sources above the document
Largest matches
Ranks sample according to the word count and
percentage of words that match a string of words.
Figure 1. Example CrossCheck Document Viewer
Page 115/187
This CrossCheck Document Viewer report shows the document being checked on the left side, highlighting
matching text (in this example in red, blue and green), and the context of the matching text in the match document
(Spirit MJ et al) on the right side. In this example the highlighted text in red and green match other sources than the
text in blue and are not shown.
The “Document Viewer” is the chosen reporting mode. Clicking on the “Text-Only Report” button will change the
display to other reporting modes, which are detailed in Table 5.
The “Similarity Index” applies to the entire document being checked and indicates the percentage of text from the
entire document which overlaps with identifies sources (matched documents) and is shown in the upper right hand
side of the report.
4.5. Figures and images
Editorial teams should be aware that CrossCheck will not identify any plagiarized figures or
images, such as line drawings and photographs. See section on figures and tables for details
about copyright and identifying the copyright of figures in Cochrane Reviews.
5. What editorial teams should do in cases of suspected
plagiarism
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published guidance, in the form of a
flowchart, on how to deal with suspected plagiarism. This flowchart has been adapted, with
permission, to The Cochrane Collaboration’s editorial process. Editorial teams with a case of
suspected plagiarism should follow the process outlined in the flowchart in Figure 2. As shown
in the flowchart, there is no arbitrary threshold that should be used to signify plagiarism, rather
the nature of the duplicated material is as important as the incidence.
As described in the flowchart, once overlapping text has been identified, the severity of overlap
Page 116/187
will dictate the action to be taken. Common reaction from authors when confronted with
accusations of plagiarism can range from indifference to anger and panic. Make your decisions
thoughtfully. Sharing the similarity report can be useful for discussion with authors if it adds
value to the discussion and understanding of the issue. Be educational rather than punitive.
It is good practice to ensure that the Co-ordinating Editor and Contact Editor (if used) for a
review are informed in cases of overlapping text and correspondence with authors. When
authors make changes in response to an editor’s feedback, a member of the editorial team
should check the revised manuscript when resubmitted to confirm the revisions are sufficient.
Figure 2. Flowchart: what to do if plagiarism is suspected
Page 117/187
Page 118/187
Adapted with permission from COPE from the flowchart: “What to do if you suspect plagiarism: Suspected
plagiarism in a submitted manuscript”.
5.1. Substantial and/or repeat instances of plagiarism
Cochrane Review Groups should follow certain steps if they identify one of the following: (1)
high levels of clear plagiarism within one review that the Co-ordinating Editor would like to draw
to the attention of the Editor in Chief; (2) repeated instances of plagiarism at different stages of
a review; or (3) from the same author(s) in different reviews.
As noted in the flowchart (Figure 2), it may be appropriate to report author(s) to academic
institutions. This action, and any other very serious consequences must be discussed and
undertaken in consultation with the Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief will, however, consider
situations on a case-by-case basis and decide on an appropriate course of action.
5.2. Recording information about cases of suspected plagiarism in Archie
Storing CrossCheck reports: Editorial teams can record similarity scores with notes of what was
checked in the History section of the review workflow. If relevant, copies of similarity reports
may be saved in the workflow files.
Recording actions taken: Editorial teams should consider whether to record as a note any action
against an author in their Archie person record, sharing the note within their entity or with a
specific administrative role. Notes should be as factual as possible, noting what has occurred
and the actions taken, as opposed to judgmental. For example, it would be appropriate to write,
“A paragraph of text was copied verbatim from a separate article without acknowledgement of
the original text. The author was asked to explain the reason for this and make appropriate
changes before resubmitting.” It would be inappropriate to write, for example, “Author often
plagiarises text”.
Instances of serious plagiarism will be escalated to the Editor in Chief (see Section 5.1). The
Editor in Chief will monitor whether cases occur with the same authors or groups of authors, and
will take appropriate action.
6. Authors reusing text from their published works
An author may wish to reuse text from another publication that he or she has authored. To avoid
the possibility of suspected plagiarism (see Box 2) and/or the possibility of violating copyright of
Page 119/187
the other work published by the author, the author should follow the practices outlined above
(see section 3, ‘Avoiding plagiarism’) or seek permission to republish content under copyright.
Editorial teams should work with authors, where this may have occurred in a review, to ensure
that text has the correct attributions.
This applies predominantly to articles other than Cochrane Reviews. It is expected that authors
of a Cochrane Review will reuse substantial parts of their protocol in the Cochrane Review that
follows, for example, and this is one of the special circumstances outlined in Section 2. These
special circumstances do not equate to plagiarism.
Box 2
Authors reusing text from their published works without proper attribution and/or copyright clearance may be
known asduplicate publication, multiple publication, overlapping publications, redundant publication, repetitive
publication, self-plagiarism, or text recycling (Wager 2014).
Source: Wager E. Defining and responding to plagiarism. Learned Publishing 2014;27(1):33–42.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published guidance, in the form of a
flowchart, on how to deal with suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript.
Editorial teams may wish to refer to this or discuss a particular situation with the Editor in Chief.
7. Managing reports of suspected plagiarism in articles published
in the CDSR
If editorial teams are alerted to suspected plagiarism in articles, including Cochrane Reviews,
published in the CDSR, refer to the COPE flowchart for “Suspected plagiarism in a published
article” (see publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and inform the Editor in Chief. The
Editor in Chief may withdraw/retract the publication as a result.
8. About this policy
The following group of people contributed to the development of this policy: Ann Jones, Anna
Hobson, Gavin Stewart, Harriet MacLehose, Karin Dearness, Laura Prescott, Liz Wager, Paul
Garner, Peter Tugwell, Phil Wiffen, Ruth Brassington, Sera Tort. The starting point for this policy
was text drafted by Liz Wager and Phil Wiffen on publication ethics, including plagiarism.
Protection of human subjects and animals in research
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
Page 120/187
Licence for publication forms
Cochrane Reviews and Protocols
Licence for Publication: Cochrane Review
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for Publication:
Cochrane Review (“Review”)
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Review. I/we have drafted the Review or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Review and approve its validity for publication.
Updating – I/we agree to maintain this Review in light of new evidence, feedback, and other
developments, and to update the Review at least once every two years, or, if requested,
transfer responsibility for maintaining the Review to others as agreed with the editorial team of
the Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane Review
Group’s Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group’s editorial
team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Review to another Cochrane Review Group.
The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Review if it is not kept up to date or
otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or The Cochrane
Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Page 121/187
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, an exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in and
to the Review, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Review and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Review is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of the
Review or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Review contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Review any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Review.
Authors’ rights – In return for the grant of the licence, the author(s) shall have the following
rights:
The right to post the Review as an electronic file on the author’s own website and/or the
author’s institution’s intranet, using any PDF version of the Review available
in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
The right to post the final accepted version of the Review (in a format specified by the
Publisher) in an institutional repository or any repository mandated by the author’s
funder, such as PubMedCentral, 12 months after publication.
The right to photocopy or to transmit online or to download, print out, and distribute a
reasonable number of copies of the published Review in whole or in part, for the
author’s personal or professional use including teaching purposes, but not for
commercial purposes.
The right to re-publish without charge all or part of any published Review authored or
contributed to by the author in a book written or edited by the author.
The right to use selected figures and tables, and selected text, including the abstract
and/or plain language summary from the Review, for the author’s own teaching
purposes.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Review or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
“This Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX,
Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to
feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most
recent version of the Review.” Please include reference to the Review and hyperlink, to the
original version using the following format: Authors. Title. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.: CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert
persistent link to the article by using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX).
(This statement should refer to the most recent issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Page 122/187
Reviews in which the Review appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted above may be sought from
The Cochrane Collaboration’s Publisher, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd (www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal, or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Review
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Review.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Review prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown.
For such cases, authors should refer to the following policy document and sample Crown
copyright licence
form:www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/informationmanagement/Publication_of_articles_written_by_ministers_and_civil_servants_PDF_FINAL.pdf.
All authors should sign the sample Crown copyright licence form contained in the policy
document or an appropriate licence from the relevant UK Government department, obtain a
signature from the relevant UK Government department, and submit it to the Cochrane Review
Group for a signature on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration (the “Publisher” in the sample
licence form). This Crown copyright licence is intended for previously unpublished work. If the
content has already been published, then the terms of the Open Government Licence
(www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/) apply and no separate licence is
necessary.
The recommended wording to acknowledge the originating department and the copyright (one
of the conditions) is “© Crown copyright [year of publication]. Reproduced with the permission
of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office/Queen’s Printer for Scotland and [name of
Department]”.
If the Cochrane Review is a work of mixed authorship of Crown and non-Crown employees, and
is not a government work, only the Crown employees would sign the Crown copyright licence.
The recommended wording to acknowledge the originating department and the copyright (one
Page 123/187
of the conditions) in this situation is “© [year of publication] The Cochrane Collaboration/Crown
copyright. Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office/Queen’s Printer for Scotland and [name of Department]”.
The signed Crown copyright licence form must be included with this Form. If you require
assistance with this process, please contact your Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Review prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee’s
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a “US Government
work”, and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the
paragraph ‘Licence for Publication’ will not apply but she/he must still sign and return this
Agreement. If the Cochrane Review was not prepared as part of the employee’s duties or is not
an official US Government publication, it is not US Government work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees – Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd will post the accepted version of contributions authored by NIH grant-holders
to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This accepted version will be made publicly available 12
months after publication. For further information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
CRGs will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when an NIH-funded
Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
Details should be sent to the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd so that the
necessary advice can be provided.
World Health Organization (WHO) work – Note to World Health Organization (WHO) staff
members:
A Cochrane Review prepared by a WHO staff member as part of the staff member's official
duties belongs to WHO. For such cases, WHO has a standard agreement with John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd. to vary certain provisions of this Form (including the grant of a non-exclusive licence).
In such a case: (i) the paragraph ‘Licence for Publication’ will not apply but the staff member
must still accept and submit this Agreement; and (ii) the staff member should make
arrangements for their Director to sign the official addendum to this Form (contact Ian Coltart
[[email protected]] at WHO Press with any queries); and (iii) the WHO staff member shall then
forward such addendum to Gavin Stewart, Associate Editor, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
([email protected]) to arrange for it to be countersigned and returned to the WHO staff
member.
The addendum, signed by WHO and Wiley, must be included with this Form. If you require
assistance with this process, please contact your Managing Editor.
Page 124/187
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) work – Note to Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO) staff members:
A Cochrane Review prepared by a PAHO staff member in the normal course of duty; or outside
the normal course of duty but related to the work of PAHO belongs to PAHO. For such cases,
PAHO has a standard agreement with John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. to vary certain provisions of this
Form (including the grant of a non-exclusive licence). In such a case: (i) the paragraph 'Licence
for Publication' will not apply but the staff member must still accept and submit the License for
Publication form; and (ii) the staff member should complete the PAHO addendum and contact
the PAHO legal department (Pamela Zuniga: [email protected]) to arrange for signature of
the completed PAHO addendum by the PAHO Deputy Director; and (iii) the PAHO staff member
shall then forward such addendum to Gavin Stewart, Associate Editor, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd ([email protected]) to arrange for it to be countersigned by the Publisher and then
returned to the PAHO staff member.
The addendum, signed by PAHO and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. must be included with this
License for Publication form. If you require assistance with this process, please contact your
Managing Editor.
Licence for publication: Protocol for a Cochrane Review
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication:
Protocol for a Cochrane Review (“Protocol”)
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design of this
Protocol. I/we have drafted the Protocol or commented on it critically for intellectual content.
I/we have reviewed the final version of the Protocol and approve its validity for publication.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane Review
Group’s Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group’s editorial
team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Protocol to another Cochrane Review Group.
Page 125/187
The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Protocol if the Cochrane Review
does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or The Cochrane
Collaboration, or if the Cochrane Review has not been completed within the prespecified/agreed time frame.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, an exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in and
to the Protocol, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Protocol and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Protocol is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of the
Protocol or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Protocol contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Protocol any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Protocol.
Authors’ rights – In return for the grant of the licence, the author(s) shall have the following
rights:
The right to post the Protocol as an electronic file on the author’s own website and/or
the author’s institution’s intranet, using any PDF version of the Review available in
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
The right to post the final accepted version of the Protocol (in a format specified by the
Publisher) in an institutional repository or any repository mandated by the author’s
funder, such as PubMedCentral, 12 months after publication.
The right to photocopy or to transmit online or to download, print out, and distribute a
reasonable number of copies of the published Protocol in whole or in part, for the
author’s personal or professional use including teaching purposes, but not for
commercial purposes.
The right to re-publish without charge all or part of any published Protocol authored or
contributed to by the author in a book written or edited by the author.
The right to use selected figures and tables, and selected text, including the abstract
and/or plain language summary from the Protocol, for the author’s own teaching
purposes.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Protocol or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
Page 126/187
‘This Protocol for a Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Protocols and Reviews are regularly updated as new
evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Protocol.’ Please include
reference to the Protocol and hyperlink, to the original version using the following format:
Authors. Title (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.:
CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert persistent link to the article by using
the URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX). (This statement should refer to the
most recent version of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Protocol
appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted above may be sought from
The Cochrane Collaboration’s Publisher, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd (www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal, or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Protocol
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Protocol.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Protocol prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown.
For such cases, authors should refer to the following policy document and sample Crown
copyright licence
form:www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/informationmanagement/Publication_of_articles_written_by_ministers_and_civil_servants_PDF_FINAL.pdf.
All authors should sign the sample Crown copyright licence form contained in the policy
document or an appropriate licence from the relevant UK Government department, obtain a
signature from the relevant UK Government department, and submit it to the Cochrane Review
Group for a signature on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration (the “Publisher” in the sample
licence form). This Crown copyright licence is intended for previously unpublished work. If the
content has already been published, then the terms of the Open Government Licence
(www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/) apply and no separate licence is
necessary.
Page 127/187
The recommended wording to acknowledge the originating department and the copyright (one
of the conditions) is “© Crown copyright [year of publication]. Reproduced with the permission
of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office/Queen’s Printer for Scotland and [name of
Department]”.
If the Cochrane Protocol is a work of mixed authorship of Crown and non-Crown employees,
and is not a government work, only the Crown employees would sign the Crown copyright
licence. The recommended wording to acknowledge the originating department and the
copyright (one of the conditions) in this situation is “© [year of publication] The Cochrane
Collaboration/Crown copyright. Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office/Queen’s Printer for Scotland and [name of Department]”.
The signed Crown copyright licence form must be included with this Form. If you require
assistance with this process, please contact your Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Protocol prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the
employee’s official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a “US
Government work”, and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case,
the paragraph ‘Licence for Publication’ will not apply but she/he must still sign and return this
Agreement. If the Cochrane Protocol was not prepared as part of the employee’s duties or is
not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
Details should be sent to the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd so that the
necessary advice can be provided.
World Health Organization (WHO) work – Note to World Health Organization (WHO) staff
members:
A Cochrane Protocol prepared by a WHO staff member as part of the staff member's official
duties belongs to WHO. For such cases, WHO has a standard agreement with John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd. to vary certain provisions of this Form (including the grant of a non-exclusive licence).
Page 128/187
In such a case: (i) the paragraph ‘Licence for Publication’ will not apply but the staff member
must still accept and submit this Agreement; and (ii) the staff member should make
arrangements for their Director to sign the official addendum to this Form (contact Ian Coltart
[[email protected]] at WHO Press with any queries); and (iii) the WHO staff member shall then
forward such addendum to Gavin Stewart, Associate Editor, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
([email protected]) to arrange for it to be countersigned and returned to the WHO staff
member.
The addendum, signed by WHO and Wiley, must be included with this Form. If you require
assistance with this process, please contact your Managing Editor.
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) work – Note to Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO) staff members:
A Cochrane Protocol prepared by a PAHO staff member in the normal course of duty; or outside
the normal course of duty but related to the work of PAHO belongs to PAHO. For such cases,
PAHO has a standard agreement with John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. to vary certain provisions of this
Form (including the grant of a non-exclusive licence). In such a case: (i) the paragraph 'Licence
for Publication' will not apply but the staff member must still accept and submit the License for
Publication form; and (ii) the staff member should complete the PAHO addendum and contact
the PAHO legal department (Pamela Zuniga: [email protected]) to arrange for signature of
the completed PAHO addendum by the PAHO Deputy Director; and (iii) the PAHO staff member
shall then forward such addendum to Gavin Stewart, Associate Editor, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd ([email protected]) to arrange for it to be countersigned by the Publisher and then
returned to the PAHO staff member.
The addendum, signed by PAHO and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. must be included with this
License for Publication form. If you require assistance with this process, please contact your
Managing Editor.
Licence for publication: CC BY open access (Cochrane Review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication – CC BY open access:
Cochrane Review ("Review")
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Page 129/187
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Review. I/we have drafted the Review or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Review and approve its validity for publication.
Updating – I/we agree to maintain this Review in light of new evidence, feedback, and other
developments, and to update the Review at least once every two years, or, if requested,
transfer responsibility for maintaining the Review to others as agreed with the editorial team of
the Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Review Group's Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group's
editorial team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Review to another Cochrane Review
Group. The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Review if it is not kept up to
date or otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or The
Cochrane Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in
and to the Review, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Review and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Review is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of
the Review or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Review contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Review any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Review.
Terms of use – The Review will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided that the Review is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
For an understanding of what is meant by the terms of the Creative Commons License, please
refer to Wiley's Open Access Terms and Conditions
(http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html).
Page 130/187
The author agrees to pay the appropriate article publication charge subject to any waiver
granted by The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Review or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
"This Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX,
Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to
feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most
recent version of the Review." Please include reference to the Review and hyperlink, to the
original version using the following format: Authors. Title. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.: CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert
persistent link to the article by using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX).
(This statement should refer to the most recent issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews in which the Review appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted under the Creative
Commons Attribution License may be sought from The Cochrane Collaboration's Publisher,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for
example, permission to publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal,
or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Review
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Review.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Review prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. Authors must ensure they comply with departmental
regulations and submit the appropriate authorisation to publish to the Managing Editor. If your
status as a government employee legally prevents you from signing this Form, please contact
Page 131/187
the Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Review prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee's
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a "US Government
work", and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the author
must still sign and return this Agreement. If the Cochrane Review was not prepared as part of
the employee's duties or is not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government
work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
If your status as a government or non-governmental organisation employee legally prevents you
from signing this Agreement, please contact the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd with all relevant details so that the necessary advice can be provided.
Licence for publication: CC BY open access (Protocol for a
Cochrane Review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication – CC BY open access:
Protocol for a Cochrane Review ("Protocol")
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Page 132/187
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Protocol. I/we have drafted the Protocol or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Protocol and approve its validity for publication.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Review Group's Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group's
editorial team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Protocol to another Cochrane
Review Group. The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Protocol if it is not
kept up to date or otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or
The Cochrane Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in
and to the Protocol, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Protocol and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Protocol is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of
the Protocol or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Protocol contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Protocol any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Protocol.
Terms of use – The Protocol will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided that the Protocol is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
For an understanding of what is meant by the terms of the Creative Commons License, please
refer to Wiley's Open Access Terms and Conditions
(http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html).
The author agrees to pay the appropriate article publication charge subject to any waiver
granted by The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Page 133/187
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Protocol or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
"This Protocol for a Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Protocols and Reviews are regularly updated as new
evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Protocol." Please include
reference to the Protocol and hyperlink, to the original version using the following format:
Authors. Title (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.:
CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert persistent link to the article by using
the URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX). (This statement should refer to the
most recent version of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Protocol
appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted under the Creative
Commons Attribution License may be sought from The Cochrane Collaboration's Publisher,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for
example, permission to publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal,
or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Protocol
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Protocol.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Protocol prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. Authors must ensure they comply with departmental
regulations and submit the appropriate authorisation to publish to the Managing Editor. If your
status as a government employee legally prevents you from signing this Form, please contact
the Managing Editor.
Page 134/187
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Protocol prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee's
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a "US Government
work", and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the author
must still sign and return this Agreement. If the Cochrane Protocol was not prepared as part of
the employee's duties or is not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government
work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
If your status as a government or non-governmental organisation employee legally prevents you
from signing this Agreement, please contact the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd with all relevant details so that the necessary advice can be provided.
Licence for publication: CC BY-NC open access (Cochrane
Review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication – CC BY-NC open access:
Cochrane Review ("Review")
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
Page 135/187
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Review. I/we have drafted the Review or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Review and approve its validity for publication.
Updating – I/we agree to maintain this Review in light of new evidence, feedback, and other
developments, and to update the Review at least once every two years, or, if requested,
transfer responsibility for maintaining the Review to others as agreed with the editorial team of
the Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Review Group's Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group's
editorial team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Review to another Cochrane Review
Group. The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Review if it is not kept up to
date or otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or The
Cochrane Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in
and to the Review, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Review and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Review is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of
the Review or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Review contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Review any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Review.
Terms of use – The Review will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC), which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided that the Review is properly cited and is not used for
commercial purposes. For an understanding of what is meant by the terms of the Creative
Commons License, please refer to Wiley's Open Access Terms and Conditions
(http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html).
The author agrees to pay the appropriate article publication charge subject to any waiver
granted by The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Page 136/187
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Review or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
"This Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX,
Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to
feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most
recent version of the Review." Please include reference to the Review and hyperlink, to the
original version using the following format: Authors. Title. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.: CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert
persistent link to the article by using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX).
(This statement should refer to the most recent issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews in which the Review appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted under the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License may be sought from The Cochrane
Collaboration's Publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
(www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal, or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Review
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Review.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Review prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. Authors must ensure they comply with departmental
regulations and submit the appropriate authorisation to publish to the Managing Editor. If your
status as a government employee legally prevents you from signing this Form, please contact
the Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
Page 137/187
A Cochrane Review prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee's
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a "US Government
work", and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the author
must still sign and return this Agreement. If the Cochrane Review was not prepared as part of
the employee's duties or is not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government
work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
If your status as a government or non-governmental organisation employee legally prevents you
from signing this Agreement, please contact the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd with all relevant details so that the necessary advice can be provided.
Licence for publication: CC BY-NC open access (Protocol for a
Cochrane Review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication – CC BY-NC open access:
Protocol for a Cochrane Review ("Protocol")
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
Page 138/187
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Protocol. I/we have drafted the Protocol or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Protocol and approve its validity for publication.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Review Group's Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group's
editorial team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Protocol to another Cochrane
Review Group. The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Protocol if it is not
kept up to date or otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or
The Cochrane Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in
and to the Protocol, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Protocol and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Protocol is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of
the Protocol or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Protocol contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Protocol any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Protocol.
Terms of use – The Protocol will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC), which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided that the Protocol is properly cited and is not used for
commercial purposes. For an understanding of what is meant by the terms of the Creative
Commons License, please refer to Wiley's Open Access Terms and Conditions
(http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html).
The author agrees to pay the appropriate article publication charge subject to any waiver
granted by The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Protocol or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
"This Protocol for a Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Page 139/187
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Protocols and Reviews are regularly updated as new
evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Protocol." Please include
reference to the Protocol and hyperlink, to the original version using the following format:
Authors. Title (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.:
CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert persistent link to the article by using
the URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX). (This statement should refer to the
most recent version of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Protocol
appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted under the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License may be sought from The Cochrane
Collaboration's Publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
(www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal, or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Protocol
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Protocol.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Protocol prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. Authors must ensure they comply with departmental
regulations and submit the appropriate authorisation to publish to the Managing Editor. If your
status as a government employee legally prevents you from signing this Form, please contact
the Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Protocol prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee's
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a "US Government
work", and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the author
must still sign and return this Agreement. If the Cochrane Protocol was not prepared as part of
Page 140/187
the employee's duties or is not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government
work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
If your status as a government or non-governmental organisation employee legally prevents you
from signing this Agreement, please contact the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd with all relevant details so that the necessary advice can be provided.
Licence for publication: CC BY-NC-ND open access (Cochrane
Review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication – CC BY-NC-ND open access:
Cochrane Review ("Review")
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Review. I/we have drafted the Review or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Review and approve its validity for publication.
Updating – I/we agree to maintain this Review in light of new evidence, feedback, and other
Page 141/187
developments, and to update the Review at least once every two years, or, if requested,
transfer responsibility for maintaining the Review to others as agreed with the editorial team of
the Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Review Group's Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group's
editorial team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Review to another Cochrane Review
Group. The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Review if it is not kept up to
date or otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or The
Cochrane Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Review must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in
and to the Review, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Review and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Review is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of
the Review or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Review contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Review any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Review.
Terms of use – The Review will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits
use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the Review is properly cited and
is not used for commercial purposes. For an understanding of what is meant by the terms of the
Creative Commons License, please refer to Wiley's Open Access Terms and Conditions
(http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html).
The author agrees to pay the appropriate article publication charge subject to any waiver
granted by The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Review or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
"This Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX,
Page 142/187
Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to
feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most
recent version of the Review." Please include reference to the Review and hyperlink, to the
original version using the following format: Authors. Title. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.:CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert
persistent link to the article by using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX).
(This statement should refer to the most recent issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews in which the Review appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted under the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License may be sought from The
Cochrane Collaboration's Publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
(www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal, or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Review
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Review.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Review prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. Authors must ensure they comply with departmental
regulations and submit the appropriate authorisation to publish to the Managing Editor. If your
status as a government employee legally prevents you from signing this Form, please contact
the Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Review prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee's
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a "US Government
work", and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the author
must still sign and return this Agreement. If the Cochrane Review was not prepared as part of
the employee's duties or is not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government
Page 143/187
work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
If your status as a government or non-governmental organisation employee legally prevents you
from signing this Agreement, please contact the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd with all relevant details so that the necessary advice can be provided.
Licence for publication: CC BY-NC-ND open access (Protocol for a
Cochrane Review)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Licence for publication – CC BY-NC-ND open access:
Protocol for a Cochrane Review ("Protocol")
All authors must sign and date this form (or a separate copy for each author) and send the
form(s) by post or fax, or scan and e-mail electronically, to the Managing Editor of the
appropriate Cochrane Review Group.
Cochrane Review ID:
Cochrane Review title:
Cochrane Review Group:
Author(s):
Authorship – I/we have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design, or
analysis and interpretation of the data in this Protocol. I/we have drafted the Protocol or
commented on it critically for intellectual content. I/we have reviewed the final version of the
Protocol and approve its validity for publication.
Cochrane Review Group approval – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Review Group's Co-ordinating Editor or nominated deputy. The Cochrane Review Group's
Page 144/187
editorial team has the right to transfer responsibility for this Protocol to another Cochrane
Review Group. The Cochrane Review Group has the right to withdraw the Protocol if it is not
kept up to date or otherwise does not meet the standards of the Cochrane Review Group and/or
The Cochrane Collaboration.
For Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews only – I/we acknowledge that, to be published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Protocol must be approved by the Cochrane
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team.
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in
and to the Protocol, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Protocol and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and print reprints thereof, and in
derivative works, in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to license or permit
others to do so.
I/we represent that the Protocol is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of
the Protocol or I am/we are expressly authorised by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Protocol contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Protocol any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Protocol.
Terms of use – The Protocol will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits
use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the Protocol is properly cited
and is not used for commercial purposes. For an understanding of what is meant by the terms of
the Creative Commons License, please refer to Wiley's Open Access Terms and Conditions
(http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-815641.html).
The author agrees to pay the appropriate article publication charge subject to any waiver
granted by The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Protocol or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include the following form of
acknowledgement and the relevant citation:
"This Protocol for a Cochrane Review is published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Protocols and Reviews are regularly updated as new
evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Protocol." Please include
reference to the Protocol and hyperlink, to the original version using the following format:
Authors. Title (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Art. No.:
CD00XXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX (insert persistent link to the article by using
the URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00XXXX). (This statement should refer to the
Page 145/187
most recent version of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Protocol
appears.)
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted under the Creative
Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License may be sought from The
Cochrane Collaboration's Publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
(www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a print journal, online journal, or book.
Declaration of interest statement, as included in the Protocol
[Statement is inserted automatically from same section in the Protocol.]
Author(s)
[The contact details are inserted automatically.]
Date:
Signature:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
UK Government work (Crown Copyright) – Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Protocol prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. Authors must ensure they comply with departmental
regulations and submit the appropriate authorisation to publish to the Managing Editor. If your
status as a government employee legally prevents you from signing this Form, please contact
the Managing Editor.
US Government work – Note to US Government employees:
A Cochrane Protocol prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the employee's
official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a "US Government
work", and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case, the author
must still sign and return this Agreement. If the Cochrane Protocol was not prepared as part of
the employee's duties or is not an official US Government publication, it is not US Government
work.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees
Pursuant to NIH mandate, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd will post the accepted version of
contributions authored by NIH grant-holders to PubMed Central upon acceptance. This
Page 146/187
accepted version will be made publicly available 12 months after publication. For further
information see www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
Cochrane Review Groups will alert the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd when
an NIH-funded Cochrane Review is marked for publication.
Other Government work
If your status as a government or non-governmental organisation employee legally prevents you
from signing this Agreement, please contact the Senior Production Editor at John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd with all relevant details so that the necessary advice can be provided.
Addendum to licence for publication of a World Health
Organization (WHO) manuscript as a Cochrane Protocol or Review
Title: [INSERT HERE]
Authors: [INSERT HERE]
1. John Wiley & Sons Limited (“the Publisher”) is responsible for the publication of a database
entitled the "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews" (“the Database”) as part of The
Cochrane Library on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. The World Health Organization
(“WHO”) owns copyright in its contribution to a manuscript entitled
"[INSERT TITLE]"
(the "Manuscript"), to be published in the Database as a Cochrane Review or Protocol (“the
Review”) upon acceptance. This Addendum modifies the terms of the Licence for Publication
for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (“the Licence”), which must also be signed
by the author(s) of the Manuscript for all content to be included in the Database, and its terms
shall prevail in the event of any conflict with the terms of the Licence. For the avoidance of
doubt, this Addendum shall apply only to WHO’s copyright interest in the Manuscript (including
where non-WHO authors of a co-authored Manuscript have assigned their copyright in their
respective contributions to the Manuscript to WHO). All non-WHO authors of a co-authored
Manuscript who have retained copyright in their respective contributions to the Manuscript, or
who hold joint copyright in the Manuscript with WHO, shall sign the Licence without this
Addendum.
2. WHO hereby grants to the Publisher on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence for the term of copyright and any extensions thereof,
to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the Manuscript as a Review in
the Database. This licence covers both electronic and print editions of the Database as well as
Page 147/187
derivative works in all languages and in all media of expression now known or later developed,
and the right to grant such licences or permissions to third parties. The Review shall not be
used to support the promotion of any third party commercial products or services.
3. Copyright in the Manuscript shall remain exclusively vested in WHO and no rights, other than
the ones explicitly provided herein, are granted. Notwithstanding the non-exclusive rights
granted above, WHO agrees not to submit the Manuscript as a whole for publication by another
commercial or scholarly journal publisher, although part(s) of the Manuscript may be published
with other commercial or scholarly publishers, either on their own or as part(s) of other works.
For the avoidance of any doubt, WHO retains the right to deal with the Manuscript as well as
any derivative works in all languages in any way, manner and format it may wish, as a whole or
in part, including the posting of the Manuscript in the WHO public institutional repository or the
right to publish it in electronic or print editions, whether by itself or through third parties, provided
that it is not published in another commercially available or scholarly journal.
4. The copyright of the Review in its published and updated versions, as well as in the
Database, is vested in The Cochrane Collaboration. Upon request, The Publisher (via the
relevant Cochrane Review Group) shall provide WHO with one complimentary PDF copy of the
published Review. In addition, the Publisher grants WHO the licence to:
(i) cite, use and publish in any manner and format tables, figures and extracts from the Review;
(ii) copy and distribute the Review internally in print format or electronically on WHO’s internal
network, provided such copies are not resold, or distributed externally except as part of an
information pack distributed by WHO;
(iii) re-use the Review or parts thereof in any publication authored or edited by WHO or by an
author of the Manuscript (excluding journal articles) where such re-used material constitutes
less than half of the total material in such publication. In such case, any modifications should
be accurately noted.
(iv) send or transmit individual copies of the Review in any format upon specific request and
provided no fee is charged, provided that there is no systematic distribution of the Review, e.g.
posting on a listserv, website or automated delivery.
5. Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted above may be sought
from the Publisher (for example, permission to publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a
print journal, online journal or book).
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (c/o The Permissions Department)
The Atrium
Southern Gate
Chichester
West Sussex PO19 8SQ
UK
Page 148/187
6. The Review shall acknowledge, in an acknowledgement consistent with the style of
acknowledgements in the Database, the copyright ownership of WHO in the Manuscript and
permission of WHO to publish the Manuscript as a Review in the Database. The preferred
format is “The World Health Organization retains copyright and all other rights in the manuscript
of this Protocol/Review as submitted for publication, including any revisions or updates to the
manuscript which WHO may make from time to time”.
WHO agrees that any and all copies of the Review or any part thereof distributed or posted by
WHO in print or electronic form will include the following form of acknowledgement and the
relevant citation:
'This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges
and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.' (This statement should
refer to the most recent version of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the
Review appears.)
7. If, where the Manuscript is co-authored with non-WHO authors, and the non-WHO authors
have retained copyright in their respective contributions to the Manuscript, including where there
is joint ownership in the Manuscript, the Publisher shall: (i) make appropriate arrangements with
the non-WHO authors, such as by obtaining a signed Licence for Publication, in order to ensure
that it has all necessary rights to publish the Manuscript; and (ii) ensure that the Review
contains an appropriate acknowledgement of the copyright of the non-WHO authors. The
preferred format is “The World Health Organization and [Author X] and [Author Y] retain
copyright and all other rights in their respective contributions to the manuscript of this Review as
submitted for publication”.
8. Any requirement with respect to maintaining or updating the Review will be discussed in good
faith, as soon as reasonably possible, on a case-by-case basis by WHO, the original authors of
the Review and the Cochrane Review Group. In the event that WHO, the original authors of the
Review and the Cochrane Review Group are unable to agree on the scope of WHO's obligation
to maintain or update the Review, WHO shall, if requested, transfer responsibility for
maintaining the Review to others as notified by the editorial team of the Cochrane Review
Group (CRG).
9. WHO confirms that it is legally entitled to grant the aforesaid rights. To the best of WHO’s
knowledge, the Manuscript does not violate or infringe the rights of any third party. WHO has
exercised reasonable care to ensure that the Manuscript is accurate.
10. Any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Addendum shall, unless
amicably settled, be subject to conciliation. In the event of failure of the latter, the dispute shall
be settled by arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the modalities to
be agreed upon by the parties or, in the absence of agreement, with the rules of arbitration of
the International Chamber of Commerce. The parties shall accept the arbitral award as final.
Nothing in or relating to this Addendum shall imply the obligation of WHO to submit to any
Page 149/187
national legislation or jurisdiction, or be deemed a waiver of any of the privileges and immunities
of WHO in conformity with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 21, 1947 or
otherwise under any national or international law, convention or agreement.
Agreed and accepted on behalf of
the World Health Organization
Signature:
Agreed and accepted on behalf of
John Wiley & Sons Limited
Signature:
Name:
Name:
Title:
Title:
Date:
Date:
Addendum to licence for publication of a Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO) manuscript as a Cochrane Protocol or
Review
Title: [INSERT HERE]
Authors: [INSERT HERE]
1. John Wiley & Sons Limited (“the Publisher”) is responsible for the publication of a database
entitled the "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews" (“the Database”) as part of The
Cochrane Library on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. The Pan American Health
Organization (“PAHO”) owns copyright in its contribution to a manuscript entitled
"[INSERT TITLE]"
(the "Manuscript"), to be published in the Database as a Cochrane Review or Protocol (“the
Review”) upon acceptance. This Addendum modifies the terms of the Licence for Publication
for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (“the Licence”), which must also be signed
by the author(s) of the Manuscript for all content to be included in the Database, and its terms
shall prevail in the event of any conflict with the terms of the Licence. For the avoidance of
doubt, this Addendum shall apply only to PAHO’s copyright interest in the Manuscript (including
Page 150/187
where non-PAHO authors of a co-authored Manuscript have assigned their copyright in their
respective contributions to the Manuscript to PAHO). All non-PAHO authors of a co-authored
Manuscript who have retained copyright in their respective contributions to the Manuscript, or
who hold joint copyright in the Manuscript with PAHO, shall sign the Licence without this
Addendum.
2. PAHO hereby grants to the Publisher on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence for the term of copyright and any extensions thereof,
to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the Manuscript as a Review in
the Database. This licence covers both electronic and print editions of the Database as well as
derivative works in all languages and in all media of expression now known or later developed,
and the right to grant such licences or permissions to third parties. The Review shall not be
used to support the promotion of any third party commercial products or services.
3. Copyright in the Manuscript shall remain exclusively vested in PAHO and no rights, other
than the ones explicitly provided herein, are granted. Notwithstanding the non-exclusive rights
granted above, PAHO agrees not to submit the Manuscript as a whole for publication by
another commercial or scholarly journal publisher, although part(s) of the Manuscript may be
published with other commercial or scholarly publishers, either on their own or as part(s) of
other works. For the avoidance of any doubt, PAHO retains the right to deal with the Manuscript
as well as any derivative works in all languages in any way, manner and format it may wish, as
a whole or in part, including the posting of the Manuscript in the PAHO public institutional
repository or the right to publish it in electronic or print editions, whether by itself or through third
parties, provided that it is not published in another commercially available or scholarly journal.
4. The copyright of the Review in its published and updated versions, as well as in the
Database, is vested in The Cochrane Collaboration. Upon request, The Publisher (via the
relevant Cochrane Review Group) shall provide PAHO with one complimentary PDF copy of the
published Review. In addition, the Publisher grants PAHO the licence to:
(i) cite, use and publish in any manner and format tables, figures and extracts from the Review;
(ii) copy and distribute the Review internally in print format or electronically on PAHO’s internal
network, provided such copies are not resold, or distributed externally except as part of an
information pack distributed by PAHO;
(iii) re-use the Review or parts thereof in any publication authored or edited by PAHO or by an
author of the Manuscript (excluding journal articles) where such re-used material constitutes
less than half of the total material in such publication. In such case, any modifications should
be accurately noted.
(iv) send or transmit individual copies of the Review in any format upon specific request and
provided no fee is charged, provided that there is no systematic distribution of the Review, e.g.
posting on a listserv, website or automated delivery.
5. Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted above may be sought
Page 151/187
from the Publisher (for example, permission to publish a version or excerpt of a Review in a
print journal, online journal or book).
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (c/o The Permissions Department)
The Atrium
Southern Gate
Chichester
West Sussex PO19 8SQ
UK
6. The Review shall acknowledge, in an acknowledgement consistent with the style of
acknowledgements in the Database, the copyright ownership of PAHO in the Manuscript and
permission of PAHO to publish the Manuscript as a Review in the Database. The preferred
format is “The Pan American Health Organization retains copyright and all other rights in the
manuscript of this Protocol/Review as submitted for publication, including any revisions or
updates to the manuscript which PAHO may make from time to time”.
PAHO agrees that any and all copies of the Review or any part thereof distributed or posted by
PAHO in print or electronic form will include the following form of acknowledgement and the
relevant citation:
'This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges
and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.' (This statement should
refer to the most recent version of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the
Review appears.)
7. If, where the Manuscript is co-authored with non-PAHO authors, and the non-PAHO authors
have retained copyright in their respective contributions to the Manuscript, including where there
is joint ownership in the Manuscript, the Publisher shall: (i) make appropriate arrangements with
the non-PAHO authors, such as by obtaining a signed Licence for Publication, in order to
ensure that it has all necessary rights to publish the Manuscript; and (ii) ensure that the Review
contains an appropriate acknowledgement of the copyright of the non-PAHO authors. The
preferred format is “The Pan American Health Organization and [Author X] and [Author Y] retain
copyright and all other rights in their respective contributions to the manuscript of this Review as
submitted for publication”.
8. Any requirement with respect to maintaining or updating the Review will be discussed in good
faith, as soon as reasonably possible, on a case-by-case basis by PAHO, the original authors of
the Review and the Cochrane Review Group. In the event that PAHO, the original authors of the
Review and the Cochrane Review Group are unable to agree on the scope of PAHO's
obligation to maintain or update the Review, PAHO shall, if requested, transfer responsibility for
maintaining the Review to others as notified by the editorial team of the Cochrane Review
Group (CRG).
Page 152/187
9. PAHO confirms that it is legally entitled to grant the aforesaid rights. To the best of PAHO’s
knowledge, the Manuscript does not violate or infringe the rights of any third party. PAHO has
exercised reasonable care to ensure that the Manuscript is accurate.
10. Any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Addendum shall, unless
amicably settled, be subject to conciliation. In the event of failure of the latter, the dispute shall
be settled by arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the modalities to
be agreed upon by the parties or, in the absence of agreement, with the rules of arbitration of
the International Chamber of Commerce. The parties shall accept the arbitral award as final.
Nothing in or relating to this Addendum shall imply the obligation of PAHO to submit to any
national legislation or jurisdiction, or be deemed a waiver of any of the privileges and immunities
of PAHO in conformity with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 21, 1947 or
otherwise under any national or international law, convention or agreement.
Agreed and accepted on behalf of
the Pan American Health Organization
Signature:
Agreed and accepted on behalf of
John Wiley & Sons Limited
Signature:
Name:
Name:
Title:
Title:
Date:
Date:
Submitting forms on behalf of an author
A Managing Editor may submit an electronic licence for publication form on behalf of an author if
one of the following circumstances apply: (1) the author has submitted a signed 'paper copy' of
the form; (2) the author is deceased (no form is required, but a Managing Editor may submit a
form to enable publication).
With effect from 25 February 2011, Managing Editors are no longer required to send paper
Page 153/187
copies of Licence for Publication forms to the Central Executive Team.
Cochrane Editorials
Licence for Publication: Cochrane Editorials
Licence for Publication: Cochrane Editorial
(“Editorial”)
When all authors have signed and dated this form, it should be sent by post or fax, or scanned
and e-mailed electronically, to the Cochrane Editorial Unit.
Cochrane Editorial Unit
11–13 Cavendish Square
London W1G 0AN, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7183 7503
Fax: +44 (0)20 7183 9163
Email: [email protected]
Cochrane Editorial title:
Author(s):
Licence for publication – I/we hereby grant to The Cochrane Collaboration for the full period of
copyright and all extensions and renewals, an exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in and
to the Editorial, including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell,
distribute, and otherwise use the Editorial and the material contained therein in electronic
editions of The Cochrane Library, and in derivative works, in all languages throughout the world,
and to license or permit others to do so.
I/we represent that the Editorial is my/our original work. I am/we are the copyright owners of the
Editorial or I am/we are expressly authorized by the copyright holder to grant this licence for
publication. I/we warrant that the Editorial contains no libellous or unlawful statements and does
not infringe the rights or privacy of others. I/we confirm that we have sought and obtained
written permission from the copyright holders to use in the Editorial any excerpts from
copyrighted works owned by third parties and have shown credit to the sources in the Editorial.
Authors’ rights – In return for the grant of the licence, the author(s) shall have the following
rights:
The right to post the Editorial as an electronic file on the author’s institution’s website,
Page 154/187
using a version of the Editorial made available by the Cochrane Editorial Unit.
The right to photocopy or to transmit online or to download, print out, and distribute a
reasonable number of copies of the published Editorial in whole or in part, for the
author’s personal or professional use including teaching purposes, but not for
commercial purposes.
The right to re-publish without charge all or part of any published Editorial authored or
contributed to by the author in a book written or edited by the author.
The right to use selected figures and tables, and selected text from the Editorial, for the
author’s own teaching purposes.
The author agrees that any and all copies of the Editorial or any part thereof distributed or
posted by the author in print or electronic form will include a citation to The Cochrane Library
and an appropriate credit to the Cochrane Collaboration and the publisher of The Cochrane
Library.
Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted above may be sought from
The Cochrane Collaboration’s Publisher, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd. (www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/PermissionsReprints.html); for example, permission to
publish a version or excerpt of an Editorial otherwise than as permitted above.
Author(s)
[insert]
Date:
[This section is repeated for each author.]
Signature:
UK Government work (Crown Copyright)
Note to UK Government Employees:
The rights in a Cochrane Editorial prepared by an employee of a UK Government department,
agency, or other Crown body as part of his/her official duties, or which is an official government
publication, belong to the Crown. For such cases, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd has a blanket
agreement with Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO, the representative of the Crown for
these purposes) to allow for the grant of a non-exclusive licence. The form for the author(s) to
sign is available online: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/articles-ministers-civil-servantsannexa.pdf.
The signed HMSO form must be included with this Form. If you require assistance with this
process, please contact the Cochrane Editorial Unit.
US Government work
Note to US Government employees:
Page 155/187
A Cochrane Editorial prepared by a US federal government employee as part of the
employee’s official duties, or which is an official US Government publication, is called a “US
Government work”, and is in the public domain in the United States of America. In such a case,
the paragraph ‘Licence for Publication’ will not apply but she/he must still sign and return this
Agreement. If the
Cochrane Editorial was not prepared as part of the employee’s duties or is not an official US
Government publication, it is not US Government work.
World Health Organization (WHO) work
Note to World Health Organization (WHO) staff members:
A Cochrane Editorial prepared by a WHO staff member as part of the staff member's official
duties belongs to WHO. For such cases, WHO has a standard agreement with John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd. to vary certain provisions of this Form (including the grant of a non-exclusive licence).
In such a case: (i) the paragraph ‘Licence for Publication’ will not apply but the staff member
must still accept and submit this Agreement; and (ii) the staff member should make
arrangements for their Director to sign the official addendum to this Form (contact Ian Coltart
[[email protected]] at WHO Press with any queries); and this Form; and (iii) the WHO staff
member shall then forward such addendum to John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (by sending it for the
attention of The Cochrane Library Associate Editor (Gavin Stewart [[email protected]]) to
arrange for it to be countersigned and returned to the WHO staff member.
The addendum, signed by WHO and Wiley, must be included with this Form. If you require
assistance with this process, please contact the Cochrane Editorial Unit.
Addendum to licence for publication of a World Health Organization (WHO)
manuscript as a Cochrane Editorial
Title:
........................................................................................................................................................
......
Authors:
........................................................................................................................................................
......
Page 156/187
1. John Wiley & Sons Limited (“the Publisher”) is responsible for the publication of The
Cochrane Library on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. The World Health Organization
(“WHO”) owns copyright in its contribution to a manuscript entitled
".......................................................................................................................................................
....."
(the "Manuscript"), to be published in The Cochrane Library as a Cochrane Editorial upon
acceptance. This Addendum modifies the terms of the Licence for Publication for The Cochrane
Library (“the Licence”), which must also be signed by the author(s) of the Manuscript for all
content to be included in The Cochrane Library, and its terms shall prevail in the event of any
conflict with the terms of the Licence. For the avoidance of doubt, this Addendum shall apply
only to WHO’s copyright interest in the Manuscript (including where non-WHO authors of a coauthored Manuscript have assigned their copyright in their respective contributions to the
Manuscript to WHO). All non-WHO authors of a co-authored Manuscript who have retained
copyright in their respective contributions to the Manuscript, or who hold joint copyright in the
Manuscript with WHO, shall sign the Licence without this Addendum.
2. WHO hereby grants to the Publisher on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence for the term of copyright and any extensions thereof,
to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the Manuscript as an Editorial
in The Cochrane Library. This licence covers both electronic and print editions of The Cochrane
Library as well as derivative works in all languages and in all media of expression now known or
later developed, and the right to grant such licences or permissions to third parties. The Editorial
shall not be used to support the promotion of any third party commercial products or services.
3. Copyright in the Manuscript shall remain exclusively vested in WHO and no rights, other than
the ones explicitly provided herein, are granted. Notwithstanding the non-exclusive rights
granted above, WHO agrees not to submit the Manuscript as a whole for publication by another
commercial or scholarly journal publisher, although part(s) of the Manuscript may be published
with other commercial or scholarly publishers, either on their own or as part(s) of other works.
For the avoidance of any doubt, WHO retains the right to deal with the Manuscript as well as
any derivative works in all languages in any way, manner and format it may wish, as a whole or
in part, including the posting of the Manuscript in the WHO public institutional repository or the
right to publish it in electronic or print editions, whether by itself or through third parties, provided
that it is not published in another commercially available or scholarly journal.
The copyright of the Editorial in its published version is vested in The Cochrane Collaboration.
Upon request, The Publisher shall provide WHO with one complimentary PDF copy of the
Page 157/187
published Editorial. In addition, the Publisher grants WHO the licence to:
(i) cite, use and publish in any manner and format tables, figures and extracts from the Editorial;
(ii) copy and distribute the Editorial internally in print format or electronically on WHO’s internal
network, provided such copies are not resold, or distributed externally except as part of an
information pack distributed by WHO;
(iii) re-use the Editorial or parts thereof in any publication authored or edited by WHO or by an
author of the Manuscript (excluding journal articles) where such re-used material constitutes
less than half of the total material in such publication. In such case, any modifications should be
accurately noted.
(iv) send or transmit individual copies of the Editorial in any format upon specific request and
provided no fee is charged, provided that there is no systematic distribution of the Editorial, e.g.
posting on a listserve, website or automated delivery.
5. Permission to re-publish in forms not covered by the rights granted above may be sought
from the Publisher (for example, permission to publish a version or excerpt of an Editorial in a
print journal, online journal or book).
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (c/o The Permissions Department)
The Atrium
Southern Gate
Chichester
West Sussex PO19 8SQ UK
6. The Editorial shall acknowledge, the copyright ownership of WHO in the Manuscript and
permission of WHO to publish the Manuscript as an Editorial in The Cochrane Library. The
preferred format is “The World Health Organization retains copyright and all other rights in the
manuscript of this Editorial as submitted for publication, including any revisions or updates to
the manuscript which WHO may make from time to time”.
7. WHO agrees that any and all copies of the Editorial or any part thereof distributed or posted
by WHO in print or electronic form will include the following form of acknowledgement and the
relevant citation:
'This Manuscript is published as a Cochrane Editorial in The Cochrane Library 20XX.’
Page 158/187
8. If, where the Manuscript is co-authored with non-WHO authors, and the non-WHO authors
have retained copyright in their respective contributions to the Manuscript, including where there
is joint ownership in the Manuscript, the Publisher shall: (i) make appropriate arrangements with
the non-WHO authors, such as by obtaining a signed Licence for Publication, in order to ensure
that it has all necessary rights to publish the Manuscript; and (ii) ensure that the Editorial
contains an appropriate acknowledgement of the copyright of the non-WHO authors.
9. WHO confirms that it is legally entitled to grant the aforesaid rights. To the best of WHO’s
knowledge, the Manuscript does not violate or infringe the rights of any third party. WHO has
exercised reasonable care to ensure that the Manuscript is accurate.
10. Any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Addendum shall, unless
amicably settled, be subject to conciliation. In the event of failure of the latter, the dispute shall
be settled by arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the modalities to
be agreed upon by the parties or, in the absence of agreement, with the rules of arbitration of
the International Chamber of Commerce. The parties shall accept the arbitral award as final.
Nothing in or relating to this Addendum shall imply the obligation of WHO to submit to any
national legislation or jurisdiction, or be deemed a waiver of any of the privileges and immunities
of WHO in conformity with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 21, 1947 or
otherwise under any national or international law, convention or agreement.
Agreed and accepted on behalf of the
World Health Organization
Signature:
Agreed and accepted on behalf of John Wiley &
Sons Limited
Signature:
Name:
Name:
Title:
Title:
Date:
Date:
Source URL:
http://www.cochrane.org/policy-manual/2276-licence-publication-cochrane-editorials
Co-publication
Authors: Cochrane Editorial Unit (Harriet MacLehose and David Tovey) and John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd (Bryony Urquhart and Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert).
This version published on 7 April 2011; minor copy edits made on 14 April 2011 and 3 July
Page 159/187
2013.
Introduction
The Cochrane Collaboration’s mission statement is to make up-to-date, accurate information
about the effects of health care readily available worldwide. In pursuit of this, there may be
circumstances where in order to achieve the widest possible dissemination and impact of review
findings it is desirable to pursue ‘co-publication’ in other and appropriate journals. The copublication of Cochrane Reviews in journals should, however, be the exception rather than the
rule and, as such, this policy document details the steps that need to be taken to ensure
acceptable co-publication.
The underlying principles that need to govern this include the following:
Honesty and transparency are crucial, both in relation to the editorial teams of the Cochrane
Review Group (CRG), the review authors, and other journals, and also to inform the reader that
different versions of the same data exist.
The needs of end users are the prevailing consideration but the wellbeing of the Collaboration,
the Cochrane brand, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) are also
crucial to any decision.
Cochrane Review authors and CRG editorial teams who have contributed to the development of
a Cochrane Review should be involved in any decision-making in relation to co-publication.
The primary publication of a Cochrane Review (and subsequent updates) is usually in the
CDSR; any exception to this would need agreement from the Editor in Chief.
Co-publication requires the permission of all the authors on the by-line of the Cochrane Review.
Solutions need to be consistent with the guidance of the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors (ICMJE), particularly the section on overlapping publication (accessed 7 April
2010).
When is a Cochrane Review submitted for publication in the CDSR?
The ICMJE considers it to be unethical to submit an article to a journal when it is already being
considered for publication elsewhere. Cochrane Reviews are considered as submitted for
publication in the CDSR once the decision has been made to publish the Protocol. This is made
clear in the formal letter sent to authors upon signing the ‘licence for publication’ form for the
Protocol (letters to be sent from 1 January 2011). This letter, from the Editor in Chief of The
Cochrane Library, indicates that authors are not free from that point to send their Cochrane
Review to another journal without permission from the CRG’s Co-ordinating Editor and the
Editor in Chief of The Cochrane Library. CRGs commit to keeping authors in touch with the
Page 160/187
development and editorial processing of their Cochrane Review when it has been submitted to
the editorial team, and to responding to queries from authors in a timely fashion. If CRGs fail to
meet this commitment to communicate appropriately, then authors may be in the position to
justify a release from the agreement to publish in CDSR.
Format of a co-published article
The standard format for co-publication of a Cochrane Review is an abridged version, and the copublication of a complete Cochrane Review would be an exceptional circumstance. It is likely
that a co-publishing journal will request that the abridged version of the Cochrane Review is
peer reviewed and edited according to the journal’s editorial process, and it is possible that the
authors will receive additional edits or feedback as part of this process. If appropriate, authors of
the Cochrane Review should take these changes into account in the next update of the
Cochrane Review. If, during the journal peer review process, authors are asked to change the
way they present the review data (e.g. the results and/or conclusions change) in comparison to
the CDSR version, the authors should discuss this with the CRG (and Editor in Chief of The
Cochrane Library, if necessary).
Requirements for co-publication
The points listed below outline the process for co-publishing a Cochrane Review in another
journal. The first contact for any query should be the Managing Editor of their CRG. The
Managing Editor may (and in some circumstances outlined below must) refer the case for
advice to the CEU (contact [email protected] and ensure that the subject line of your email
clearly states “Co-publication query”) or the publishers
(Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, [email protected]).
1. For all instances of co-publication, the authors should approach the CRG’s Managing
Editor using the ‘Permission to co-publish form’ (Appendix 2). Permission will not be
unreasonably withheld.
2. If the authors propose publishing an abridged version in a journal:
1. before publication in the CDSR (prior publication) – the CRG will refer the case
to the CEU for permission.
2. at the same time as publication in the CDSR (simultaneous publication) – the
CRG will refer the case to the CEU for permission or inform the CRG if there is
an existing co-publication agreement with the journal.
3. after publication in the CDSR (post-publication) but either the journal has not yet
signed a Cochrane co-publication agreement (check the list in Appendix 3) or if
the journal appears on the list of high-profile journals (Appendix 4) – the CRG will
refer the case to the CEU for permission. The CEU will consult with the CRG, the
authors, and the journal, as necessary. The CEU will ask Wiley to ensure that
the journal signs a Cochrane co-publication agreement and that permission is
granted to the author. The CEU will inform the CRG of the decision, and the
Page 161/187
CRG will communicate the decision to the author.
4. after publication in the CDSR (post-publication) AND the journal has already
signed a Cochrane co-publication agreement (check the list in Appendix 3) – the
CRG can grant permission to the author and does not need to refer to the CEU.
The CRG will ensure that the CEU is aware of each permission granted by
sending a copy of the completed ‘Permission to co-publish’ form to the CEU.
3. All co-publishing journals will be asked to sign a Cochrane co-publication agreement
with Wiley. This can be a one-off agreement or an agreement to co-publish over a
period of time (i.e. it does not need to be signed by the journal for each abridged
review). All journals that have already signed the agreement to co-publish over a period
of time are listed below. If the journal has not yet signed an agreement the CEU will
instruct Wiley to ensure that an agreement is signed (in advance of submission to the
journal as far as possible).
4. When submitting an abridged version of a Cochrane Review to a journal (or enquiring
about submission in the case of prior or simultaneous publication), the author must
make a complete statement to the journal editor to say that the article is based on a
Cochrane Review (published or in progress).
5. The journal version must faithfully reflect the data and interpretations of the Cochrane
version. Where journal editing and peer review have resulted in differences in the data
or interpretation, these should be discussed with the CRG, and, where appropriate,
incorporated into a revised version of the Cochrane Review at the next available
opportunity, and with appropriate acknowledgement to the journal’s peer
reviewers/editors.
6. The title of the journal version should indicate that it is a secondary publication
(complete republication, abridged republication, complete translation, or abridged
translation) of the Cochrane Review, preferably by including 'Cochrane Review' or
'Cochrane Systematic Review' in the title.
7. The support of the CRG in publishing the Cochrane Review should be acknowledged in
an appropriate place in the journal version (e.g. in the Acknowledgements section).
8. The Cochrane Review must be cited in the reference list of the journal version.
1. A footnote should be placed on the title page of the journal version to inform
readers and documenting agencies that the paper has been published
previously, either in whole or in part, citing the primary publication (CDSR); for
example: “This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) YYYY, Issue X, DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD00xxxx (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information).
Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in
response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent
version of the review.”
2. The Cochrane Review published in the CDSR should reference the journal
Page 162/187
version in the section ‘Other published versions of this review’ as soon as
possible after publication of the journal version or when in press.
The workflow will help CRGs and authors to navigate the processes for discussing and
arranging co-publication (Appendix 5). CRGs will communicate the co-publishing decision to the
authors or seek additional information using the available template (Appendix 6).
Scenarios addressed in this policy
This policy addresses the following potential scenarios:
Publishing summaries of Cochrane Reviews in another journal or resource (e.g. a
‘Cochrane Corner’).
Prior publication’: publication in a journal before publication in the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
‘Simultaneous publication’: publication in a journal on the same or similar date.
‘Post-publication’: publishing in a journal after publication in the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
Co-publishing Cochrane Review updates.
Republication of Cochrane Reviews in official Cochrane journals (e.g. Evidence-Based
Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal).
Converting systematic reviews (non-Cochrane) to Cochrane Reviews.
Submitting abstracts to conferences
Publishing summaries of Cochrane Reviews in another journal or resource
(e.g. a ‘Cochrane Corner’)
Republishing Cochrane abstracts and/or plain language summaries in journals (e.g. 'Cochrane
Corners') with or without additional commentary is an effective dissemination tool for keeping
specialist audiences abreast of the most recent evidence published in the Cochrane Database
of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Each journal publishing a 'Cochrane Corner' or similar feature
needs to request permission to republish Cochrane Review abstracts and plain language
summaries, and can do this by applying directly to The Cochrane Library publishers, John Wiley
& Sons Ltd., for permission. Journal editors should contact Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert
([email protected]) to discuss the arrangements. Commentaries published in addition to a
Cochrane Review abstract or plain language summary should clearly differentiate between the
author(s) of the commentary and the author(s) of the Cochrane Review (i.e. it should not appear
that a Cochrane Review has been published by a different set of authors).
The list of journals or resources with signed agreements to publish summaries of Cochrane
Reviews is available (see Appendix 1).
Prior publication’: publication in a journal before publication in
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)
Page 163/187
Publishing the completed Cochrane Review in a journal before publication in the CDSR is
almost always an inferior option to ‘simultaneous publication’ and should be reserved for
exceptional circumstances. Authors considering this option should first contact the Managing
Editor of the relevant CRG with a completed ‘Permission to co-publish’ form (Appendix 2). The
Managing Editor will refer each case to the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) for permission;
contact [email protected] and ensure that the subject line of your email clearly states “Copublication query”. The authors, the CRG and the journal will be required to follow all steps
outlined in the ‘Requirements for co-publication’.
Authors should also be aware that submitting an abridged version of a Cochrane Review
(completed or in progress) to a journal, without the permission of the Cochrane Review Group
(CRG) and Cochrane Editorial Unit, and with the intention that the journal version is published
first, may be considered duplicate submission. In such cases the CRG and the CEU will be
guided by the procedures outlined by the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE;
www.publicationethics.org) and the ICMJE.
Simultaneous publication’: publication in a journal on the same or similar
date
There may be instances when the public would benefit from the simultaneous publication of a
Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and another
journal. The journal is likely to be a specialist publication (reaching a specialist audience) or
published in a language other than English (reaching a new audience). Simultaneous
publication may be discussed for a Cochrane Review at any stage in the process, but ideally
this should be discussed with the Cochrane Review Group's (CRG’s) Managing Editor as soon
as the authors consider this possibility. Any decision on whether or not to agree to copublication will reflect the input and contribution of the CRG staff, editors, and peer reviewers.
This contribution should also be acknowledged in any co-published version of the Review.
Before proceeding along this route, authors must consider the following.
The journal editor may consider the publication to be redundant (duplicate) publication,
that is, “publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published in
print or electronic media” (www.icmje.org/publishing_4overlap.html; accessed 7 April
2010). This could potentially lead to limitations being imposed on publication of the
Cochrane Review in the CDSR, which are unacceptable to The Cochrane Collaboration.
Authors of published Cochrane Reviews have granted The Cochrane Collaboration an
exclusive licence for publication (available in the Cochrane Policy Manual:
www.cochrane.org/policy-manual/227-copyright-licence-publication-forms) for the
Cochrane Review, meaning that the Cochrane Review cannot be published elsewhere
without permission, and the journal editor needs to be aware of this.
Authors considering this option should first contact the relevant Managing Editor of the CRG for
permission (using the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form, in Appendix 2). The CRG will refer each
case to the CEU; contact [email protected] and ensure that the subject line of your email
Page 164/187
clearly states “Co-publication query”. The authors, the CRG and the journal will all be required
to follow the steps outlined below in the ‘Requirements for co-publication’.
Post-publication’: publishing in a journal after publication in the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)
There may be instances when the authors feel that subsequent publication of an abridged
version of a published Cochrane Review in another journal would be in the public interest. In
these cases the journal is likely to be a specialist publication (reaching a specialist audience) or
published in a language other than English (reaching a new audience). Before proceeding along
this route, authors must consider the following.
The editor of the other journal may consider the publication to be redundant (duplicate)
publication, that is, “publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already
published in print or electronic media” (www.icmje.org/publishing_4overlap.html;
accessed 7 April 2010).
Authors of published Cochrane Reviews have granted The Cochrane Collaboration an
exclusive licence for publication for the Cochrane Review, and the journal editor needs
to be aware of this.
Authors considering this option should first contact the Managing Editor of the relevant
Cochrane Review Group (CRG) using the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form (Appendix 2). The
authors, the CRG, and the journal will all be required to follow the steps outlined in the
‘Requirements for co-publication’ section.
If the journal has already signed a Cochrane co-publication agreement (listed in Appendix 3) the
CRG can grant permission without referring the case to the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU),
although the CRG will ensure that the CEU is aware of each permission granted by sending a
copy of the completed ‘Permission to co-publish’ form to the CEU. If, however, the journal has
not yet signed a co-publication agreement, or if the journal appears on the list of high-profile
journals (Appendix 4), the case will be referred to the CEU for permission (contact
[email protected] and ensure that the subject line of your email clearly states “Co-publication
query”). The CEU will ask Wiley to ensure that the journal signs a Cochrane co-publication
agreement and that permission is granted to the author. The CEU will inform the CRG of the
decision, and the CRG will communicate the decision to the author.
Co-publishing Cochrane Review updates
Keeping Cochrane Reviews up-to-date in response to new evidence, feedback, and
methodology is a responsibility for authors and Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). An updated
version will be based substantially on the previous version of the published Cochrane Review.
Authors must consider the following when considering this option.
Cochrane Reviews should be updated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(CDSR). Any decision to co-publish an updated Cochrane Review in a journal must
Page 165/187
involve discussion with both the CRG and Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU).
The co-publication of any updated Cochrane Review must be substantially different to
any previous co-publication of the same Review (e.g. the conclusions are different).
The editor of the journal may consider the publication to be redundant (duplicate)
publication, that is, “publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already
published in print or electronic media” (www.icmje.org/publishing_4overlap.html;
accessed 7 April 2010).
Authors of published Cochrane Reviews have granted The Cochrane
Collaboration an exclusive licence for publication for the Cochrane Review, and
the journal editor needs to be aware of this.
For permission to co-publish an updated version of a Cochrane Review, please contact the
Managing Editor of your CRG, using the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form (Appendix 2); your case
may be referred to the Cochrane Editorial Unit for further guidance. The guidance given in the
‘Requirements for co-publication’ section should also be followed.
Author teams should also refer to the formal letter sent from the Editor in Chief of The Cochrane
Library to authors upon publication of a Cochrane Review. The letter describes that published
Cochrane Review authors have a duty to: (1) seek permission if they wish to publish elsewhere;
(2) inform the CRG; and (3) cite their Cochrane Review in any co-published versions. The letter
also states the services that authors can expect from the CRG, including support for the
updating search, and the expectations on either side, including the commitment by CRGs to be
responsive and timely with feedback.
Republication of Cochrane Reviews in official Cochrane journals (e.g.
Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal)
Cochrane Reviews may be selected for publication in official Cochrane Collaboration journals,
which at the moment comprises only one journal title (Evidence-Based Child Health: a
Cochrane Review Journal), but may in the future include additional journal titles. Copyright for
republication of Cochrane Reviews in official Cochrane Collaboration publications is covered in
the Cochrane Licence for Publication form, which grants an exclusive licence to The Cochrane
Collaboration for publication in the CDSR and in any derivative products. The authors are
always informed when their Cochrane Review has been selected for republication in an official
Cochrane Collaboration journal.
When Cochrane Reviews are republished in full in a Cochrane journal (e.g. in Evidence-Based
Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal) the authors may still seek to co-publish an abridged
version of the Cochrane Review in another journal when the aim is to reach a new audience by
shortening the Review and making it accessible for a certain audience (e.g. for clinicians). In
these cases, permission should still be sought via the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) in the
usual way (outlined in the ‘Requirements for co-publication’ section). The authors are
responsible for ensuring that the co-publishing journal is aware that the Review appears not
only in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) but also in Evidence-Based
Child Health.
Page 166/187
Note that the Overviews of Reviews (i.e. not Cochrane Reviews) published in the journal
Evidence-Based Child Health are already abridged for a journal readership and they are not
available for co-publishing in any other journal.
Converting systematic reviews (non-Cochrane) to Cochrane Reviews
There may be instances when authors wish to convert a non-Cochrane systematic review into a
Cochrane Review so that it can be included within the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews (CDSR) and updated thereafter. In these cases, the journal in which the systematic
review was first published is the primary publication and the CDSR is the secondary publication.
Authors of these systematic reviews need to be mindful of any licence for publication forms (or
copyright forms) signed for the primary (journal) publication.
If authors are considering converting a non-Cochrane systematic review to a Cochrane Review,
then the following additional steps need to be taken:
1. The authors should inform the journal editor (of the primary publication) and obtain
consent. The journal editor may also refer the authors to the publisher for permission.
2. When considering conversion, the author must make a complete statement to the
Cochrane Review Group's (CRG’s) Managing Editor about the journal article (primary
publication), which may be regarded as redundant or duplicate publication.
3. The CRG’s Co-ordinating Editor will decide whether the conversion is in the interests of
the CDSR and its readers, and whether processing the review is an appropriate use of
time of the CRG's editorial team and its peer reviewers and editors. The CRG should
determine this in the context of its own priorities and is at absolute liberty to decline the
title. Equally, the CRG might decide that the needs of users would be better realized by
delaying conversion and setting an updated search date in order to incorporate new
studies, which might change the findings of the review.
4. The Acknowledgements section of the Cochrane Review should inform readers and
documenting agencies that the paper has been published previously in whole or in part,
and state the primary reference (journal article). The full reference to the primary
publication (journal article) should be included in the section ‘Other published versions
of this review’.
Submitting abstracts to conferences
Published Cochrane Review
If the Cochrane Protocol or Review is published, the author(s) can submit the abstract to the
conference without seeking additional permission. The author(s) must include the citation to the
Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).
Unpublished Cochrane Review
If the Cochrane Protocol or Review is still being prepared and the author(s) wishes submit an
abstract to a conference, then the author will need to include an appropriate citation, such as,
Page 167/187
“This abstract is based on 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.thecochranelibrary.com)."
Agreements between journals and the CDSR for co-publication of
Cochrane Reviews
Some journals have indicated that they would like to publish abridged versions of Cochrane
Reviews. In the past these have been informal agreements, but from 2010 onwards copublication agreements need to be formalized between the editor of the journal, the Editor in
Chief of The Cochrane Library, and Wiley (the publishers of The Cochrane Library). A list of
journals that have signed a Cochrane co-publication agreement is available (Appendix 3).
Journal editors interested in arranging a Cochrane co-publication agreement should contact the
Editor in Chief of The Cochrane Library. A template for a co-publication agreement is available
(Appendix 7).
Authors should be aware that, even if such an agreement is in place, the Cochrane Review
article is likely to go through the journal’s own peer review and editorial process (in addition to
the Cochrane Review Group’s processes). CRGs are encouraged to work with journal editorial
teams that maintain a co-publication agreement, so that the process can be made as efficient
as possible.
Authors who submit an abridged Cochrane Review to a journal with a Cochrane co-publication
agreement do not need to request permission from the Cochrane Review publishers (John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.) to republish, but they do need to complete the ‘Permission to co-publish’
form (Appendix 2) and send this to the CRG’s Managing Editor. If permission is granted, the
CRG should forward the completed form to the CEU for their information; contact
[email protected] and ensure that the subject line of your email clearly states “Co-publication
query”. This will help the CEU to track how Cochrane Reviews are being co-published, and this
information will help with future revisions of this policy.
Appendices
Appendix 1
List of journals with agreements to publish summaries of Cochrane Reviews in another journal
or resource (eg a ‘Cochrane Corner’)
Appendix 2
Permission to co-publish an abridged version of a Cochrane Review in a journal: form
Page 168/187
Appendix 3
List of journals with Cochrane co-publication agreements
Appendix 4
List of high-profile journals
Appendix 5
Workflow for co-publishing Cochrane Reviews (including updates) in other journals
Appendix 6
Templates: Correspondence between Cochrane Review Group and author
Appendix 7
Template: Co-publication agreement for journals
Appendix 1. List of journals with agreements to publish
summaries of Cochrane Reviews in another journal or resource
(e.g. a ‘Cochrane Corner’)
The journals listed below have all signed agreements with John Wiley & Sons Ltd. to publish
summaries/commentaries of Cochrane Reviews.
BMJ Shortcuts
Clinical Otolaryngology
Stroke
Appendix 2. Permission to co-publish an abridged version of a
Cochrane Review in a journal: form
This form has four sections to be completed by the authors (section 1), the Cochrane Review
Group (section 2), the Cochrane Editorial Unit (section 3), and the publishers of The Cochrane
Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (section 4). Download the form as a Word document (version
from 3 November 2011).
Appendix 3. List of journals with Cochrane co-publication
Page 169/187
agreements
The journals listed below have all signed Cochrane co-publication agreements and are either
specialty titles or regional titles. Authors who wish to co-publish an abridged version of a
Cochrane Review in one of these journals after publication in the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews should complete the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form (Appendix 2) and send
it to the Cochrane Review Group’s (CRG’s) Managing Editor. The CRG can grant permission
to the author and need not refer the case to the Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) (although in
some circumstances they may wish to consult the CEU for specific guidance). In any case the
CRG should ensure that the CEU receives a copy of all ‘permission to co-publish’ forms; send
to [email protected] and ensure that the subject line of your email clearly states “Copublication query”.
Advances in Psychiatry Treatment
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Archives of Dermatology
British Journal of Dermatology
British Journal of Surgery
British Medical Journal
BMJ Publishing Group's specialist journals (All)
Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Cancer Treatment Review
Climacteric
Cochlear Implants International
Colorectal Disease
Diabetic Medicine
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Health Education Journal
Human Reproduction
HNO
International Journal of Epidemiology
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
JAMA
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Journal of Audiological Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy
Journal of Human Hypertension
Journal of Laryngology and Otology
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
Page 170/187
Journal of Rheumatology
Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Pediatric Anesthesia
Saudi Medical Journal
South African Medical Journal
Spine
Appendix 4. List of high-profile journals
Authors who wish to co-publish an abridged version of a Cochrane Review in one of these
journals should complete the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form (Appendix 2) and send it to the
Managing Editor of their Cochrane Review Group (CRG). The CRG will always refer the request
to the Cochrane Editorial Unit for permission, which will not be unreasonably withheld.
New England Journal of Medicine
The Lancet
JAMA
Annals of Internal Medicine
BMJ
PLoS Medicine
Annual Review of Medicine
Archives of Internal Medicine
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Journal of Internal Medicine
Appendix 5. Workflow for co-publishing Cochrane Reviews
(including updates) in other journals
Page 171/187
Page 172/187
Download the workflow chart as PDF.
CDSR: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CEU: Cochrane Editorial Unit; CRG:
Cochrane Review Group
Appendix 6. Templates: Correspondence between Cochrane
Review Group and author
Templates available:
Request author to complete the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form
Request author to provide additional information in the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form
Permission to co-publish a Cochrane Review in a journal is granted
Permission to co-publish in a journal is denied
Request author to complete the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form
Dear [insert name],
Thank you for requesting permission to co-publish your Cochrane Review entitled “[insert title]”
(“[insert CD number”]) in the journal [insert journal title]. To collect all necessary information,
please complete Section 1 of the ‘Permission to co-publish’ form (available from [insert website
address]/attached to this email) with as much information as possible and return to me at the
address below.
The Cochrane co-publication policy can be found in the Cochrane Editorial and Publishing
Policy Resource (http://www.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource); you will find
it useful to familiarize yourself with this document before completing the ‘Permission to copublish’ form. Also, as part of this form you will be asked to confirm that you agree to adhere to
all requirements for co-publication, as outlined in the co-publication policy in the Cochrane
Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource.
If you have any queries about this process, please contact me at the address below.
Best wishes
[Insert name, Managing Editor, Cochrane [insert] Review Group]
[Insert address and contact details]
Request author to provide additional information in the ‘Permission to copublish’ form
Dear [insert name],
Thank you for submitting the permission to co-publish form for your Cochrane Review entitled
Page 173/187
“[insert title]” (“[insert CD number”]) in the journal [insert journal title]. Before we can consider
your request, please answer the questions below, providing as much detail as possible.
1.
2.
3.
You should insert your answers into the “Authors’ comments” section of your completed
‘Permission to co-publish’ form, which is attached to this email.
The Cochrane co-publication policy can be found in the Cochrane Editorial and Publishing
Policy Resource (http://cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource). You will find it
useful to familiarize yourself with this document before completing the ‘Permission to copublish’ form. Also, as part of this form you will be asked to confirm that you agree to adhere to
all requirements for co-publication, as outlined in the co-publication policy in the Cochrane
Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource.
If you have any queries about this process, please contact me at the address below.
Best wishes
[Insert name, Managing Editor, Cochrane [insert] Review Group]
[Insert address and contact details]
Permission to co-publish a Cochrane Review in a journal is granted
Dear [insert name],
Thank you for requesting permission to co-publish your Cochrane Review entitled “[insert title]”
(“[insert CD number”]) in the journal [insert journal title].
I am pleased to be able to tell you that permission to co-publish has been granted, subject to
adherence to the points outlined below. The journal has also agreed to adhere to these criteria:
When submitting an abridged version of a Cochrane Review to a journal (or enquiring about
submission in the case of prior or simultaneous publication), the author must make a complete
statement to the journal editor to say that the article is based on a Cochrane Review (published
or in progress), which might be regarded as redundant or duplicate publication.
The journal version must faithfully reflect the data and interpretations of the Cochrane version.
Where journal editing and peer review results in differences in the data or interpretation, these
should be discussed with the Cochrane Review Group and, where appropriate, incorporated
Page 174/187
into an update of the Cochrane Review at the next available opportunity with appropriate
acknowledgement to the journal’s peer reviewers/editors.
The title of the journal version should indicate that it is a secondary publication (complete
republication, abridged republication, complete translation, or abridged translation) of the
Cochrane Review, preferably by including 'Cochrane Review' or 'Cochrane Systematic Review'
in the title.
The support of the Cochrane Review Group in publishing the Cochrane Review should be
acknowledged in an appropriate place in the journal version (e.g. in the Acknowledgements
section).
The Cochrane Review must be cited in the text and reference list of the journal version.
A footnote should be placed on the title page of the journal version to inform readers and
documenting agencies that the paper has been published previously, either in whole or in part,
citing the primary publication (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews); for example:
“This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews (CDSR) YYYY, Issue X, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00xxxx (see
www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new
evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the
most recent version of the review.”
The Cochrane Review published in the CDSR should reference the journal version in the
section ‘Other published versions of this review’ as soon as possible after publication of the
journal version or when in press.
Please send a copy of the journal version of your article to me upon publication and, in the
meantime, do come back to me if you have any queries about this process.
Best wishes
[Insert name, Managing Editor, Cochrane [insert] Review Group]
[Insert address and contact details]
Permission to co-publish in a journal is denied
Dear [insert name],
Thank you for requesting permission to co-publish your Cochrane Review entitled “[insert title]”
(“[insert CD number”]) in the journal [insert journal title].
Unfortunately, we are unwilling to grant you permission to co-publish this Cochrane Review.
This decision was reached in consultation with the Editor in Chief of The Cochrane Library, and
Page 175/187
the reasons for this decision are outlined below:
1.
2.
3.
Do come back to me if you have any queries about this process.
Best wishes
[Insert name, Managing Editor, Cochrane [insert] Review Group]
[Insert address and contact details]
Appendix 7. Template: Co-publication agreement for journals
For information only; Wiley will administer all co-publication agreements
This agreement (“Agreement”) is made on [date] between the [name of society (or owner of
journal)] of [address] and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (“Wiley”) whose registered office is at The
Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, PO19 8SQ, West Sussex, UK regarding the co-publication
of content from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the “Reviews”) in the journal
[journal], and on the associated website [website address]. This Agreement shall commence on
the date of signature of the Agreement by both parties and shall continue in effect for a period of
two (2) years (the initial term) and shall continue thereafter for subsequent one-year terms,
subject to termination by either party in writing at least 30 days prior to the expiry of the initial
term or each such subsequent one-year term.
Co-publication of Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Either: [The [Society/Owner] will select Reviews from suggestions supplied by a Cochrane
Review Group (CRG) and will solicit submissions of abridged versions of the Reviews directly
from the Review Authors. Review Authors will be invited directly by the [society/owner], and will
be instructed to follow the [journal] guidelines; in order that submissions to [journal] will follow
the standard [journal] peer review and editing process.]
Or: [The invitation to re-publish abridged versions of Cochrane Reviews in [journal] will be
extended to all Review Authors publishing with the following Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs):
[list]. If Review Authors decide to submit an abridged version of their Cochrane Review for copublication in the journal, they will be instructed to follow the [journal] guidelines; in order that
submissions to [journal] will follow the standard [journal] peer review and editing process].
It is anticipated that [journal] will re-publish up to six abridged Reviews of this type a year.
Page 176/187
[Society/Owner] may ask Review Authors of abridged versions of Reviews to sign their standard
[journal] copyright transfer agreements or licences, provided that any rights transferred are
subject to the agreement signed by all Review Authors in relation to the publication of the
Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. It is expressly agreed that, in signing
a copyright transfer agreement or licence for publication of the Review in the journal, the Review
Author retains the right to use any information or content supplied as part of the journal article to
update or otherwise modify the Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
The [society/owner] agrees to the following conditions for re-publication:
It is agreed that all [journal] abridged versions of the Reviews will be published after first
publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews unless specific prior permission is
sought by the Review Authors from the Editor in Chief of The Cochrane Library.
The title of the abridged Review published in the [journal] shall make it clear that the Review is
abridged from a Cochrane Systematic Review – for example: “XXX: a Cochrane Review” or
“XXX: a Cochrane Systematic Review”.
The abridged Review must faithfully reflect the data and interpretations of the Cochrane Review.
Where journal editing and peer review results in differences in the data or interpretation these
will, where appropriate, be incorporated into an update of the Cochrane Review in the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews at the next available opportunity, with acknowledgement as
appropriate.
The support of the CRG in publishing the Cochrane Review should be acknowledged in an
appropriate place in the journal version (e.g. in the Acknowledgements section).
It is agreed that [society/owner] will instruct Review Authors to cite the full Review, published in
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the reference list of each abridged version
published in [journal]. The citation should include the author(s) name(s), the title of the Review,
the Review number (e.g. CD00xxxx), issue number and year of publication of the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, plus the dates of any amendments: e.g. Doumit G, Gattellari
M, Grimshaw J, O'Brien MA. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health
care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000125.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00xxxx.
In addition, it is agreed that the following statement shall be included in [journal] as a footnote
on the first page of each version published in [journal]: “This review is an abridged version of a
Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
YYYY, Issue X, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00xxxx (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for
information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in
response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for
the most recent version of the review.”
The Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will
reference the journal version in the section ‘Other published versions of this review’ as soon as
Page 177/187
reasonably practicable after publication of the journal version.
The [Society/Owner] will send one copy of each [journal] issue containing an abridged Review
to: Cochrane Editor, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West
Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK.
The parties will adopt an agreed problem resolution process during the term of this Agreement
to allow for editorial concerns to be addressed by the [journal] Editor in Chief, the relevant
Review Author, the Cochrane Review Group Co-ordinating Editor, the Editor in Chief of The
Cochrane Library, and representatives from Wiley.
Both parties represent and warrant that they have full right and authority to enter this Agreement
and to comply with the provisions herein.
[Society/Owner] shall publish abridged Reviews at its own risk and expense. To the fullest
extent permitted by law, Wiley (for itself and its licensors) disclaims any liability for the content,
accuracy or suitability for re-publication of the Reviews.
This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the
other. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the subsidiaries,
successors and assigns of the parties.
This Agreement shall be governed by English law as if made and wholly performed in England
and the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
This Agreement constitutes the complete understanding of the parties in relation to the subject
matter and no modification or waiver of any provisions shall be valid unless in writing and signed
by both parties. Any waiver in one or more instances by either of the parties of any breach by
the other of any terms or provisions contained in this Agreement shall not be considered a
waiver of any succeeding or preceding breach.
Signed:
Signed:
Title:
Title:
For and on behalf of
For and on behalf of
[journal]
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[address 1]
The Atrium, Southern Gate
[address 2]
Chichester, West Sussex
[address 3]
P019 8SQ, UK
Page 178/187
Date:
Date:
For permission to republish a table from a Cochrane Review,
see http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-403426.html
Permissions and reprints
Permission to re-use material from the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews now uses RightsLink®, the automated, online
permissions clearing system from the Copyright Clearance Center. Requests to re-use or
republish figures, tables, extracts and entire reviews can now be cleared online and a license
providing details of the permission and the terms and conditions of the re-use is available for
immediate download.
For more information, visit the Cochrane Library permissions and reprints webpage.
Authors/copyright owners of Cochrane Reviews
Authors have a number of rights in return for signing the Licence for Publication form. These are
described in the Licence for Publication form.
Inclusion of a Cochrane Protocol or Review in a thesis or dissertation
Published version
If the Cochrane Protocol or Review is published, the author can requests permission to include
the Cochrane Protocol or Review, in whole or in part, by clicking on the ‘Rightslink’ link
alongside the published Cochrane Protocol or Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews (www.cochranelibrary.com).
Unpublished version
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:
"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)."
Page 179/187
Cochrane Groups (including Cochrane Review Groups)
Registered Cochrane groups (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) and other Cochrane entities)
are entitled, without contacting the publisher, to re-publish on CRG and other Cochrane Entity
websites, in email, or other Cochrane-related alerting services:
Plain language summaries and abstracts (and translations thereof, where these are
available) of Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews.
All or part of the CRG or other Cochrane Entity modules published as part of the About
The Cochrane Collaboration database.
Permission to re-use of material from The Cochrane Library
website
For all enquiries related to the general re-use of material from The Cochrane Library website
please contact Gavin Stewart ([email protected]), Associate Editor, The Cochrane Library,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Permission to re-use material from the Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Academic re-use of Handbook material
Requests for permission to re-use material from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
Reviews of Interventions only for academic purposes should be directed to Julian Higgins
([email protected]) or Jackie Chandler ([email protected]), Handbook Editors.
If approved, these will be granted free of charge on condition that the source is acknowledged.
Commercial re-use of Handbook material
Commercial re-use includes any use of the Handbook that will be used in a product for which
there is a monetary fee, and/or where it is associated in any way with any product or service.
For all enquiries related to the commercial re-use of Handbook material please contact Gavin
Stewart ([email protected]), Associate Editor, The Cochrane Library, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.
Access to the PDF files of individual chapters
Members of The Cochrane Collaboration can access and download PDF files of each
Handbook chapter on the Cochrane community site via Archie login:
Page 180/187
www.cochrane.org/community/resources-databases/cochrane-handbook-systematic-reviewsinterventions-pdfs.
Reprints of Cochrane Reviews
Should you require any reprints of individual Cochrane Reviews (minimum 300 copies) please
contact your regional office of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Please see The Cochrane Library
permissions and reprints webpage for further information.
Inclusion of a Cochrane Protocol or Review in a thesis or
dissertation
Published version
If the Cochrane Protocol or Review is published, the author can request permission by using
RightsLink, the automated permissions system. Access RightsLink by clicking on the ‘Request
Permissions’ linkalongside the published Cochrane Protocol or Review in the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews (www.thecochranelibrary.com).
Unpublished version
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:
"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.thecochranelibrary.com)."
Correspondence, dissemination, and impact
Feedback
We are working on this section. Please contact us for more information.
Disseminating Cochrane Reviews
Key user groups
Page 181/187
The key user groups of the Cochrane Library – those that use the content to inform healthcare
decisions – are clinicians and healthcare workers, researchers (including information specialists
and guideline developers), students, consumers (including patients and carers), and policymakers.
There are other groups important to the Cochrane Library who serve a variety of purposes,such
as those involved in knowledge translation and dissemination via media outlets, journalists, and
bloggers to global audiences; database providers who ‘repackage’ content, policy-setting
bodies, and others; bodies who provide access to content by purchasing institutional, regional,
and national licences to the Cochrane Library; and funders of Cochrane Reviews and related
content.
These groups were described in the Cochrane Content Strategic Session background paper.
Guiding principle for disseminating Cochrane Reviews
The guiding principle for dissemination is to reach the widest possible audience via different
routes while maintaining the integrity of the individual Cochrane Reviews.
Centrally organized dissemination activities
Many of the dissemination activities are co-ordinated by the Cochrane Communications and
External Affairs Department (CEAD) and the Cochrane Editorial Unit, often in partnership with
Cochrane's publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Press releases
Press releases are produced to highlight some of the key healthcare conclusions of Cochrane
Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and their
implications for practice.
Press releases for Cochrane Reviews are available on the Wiley Press Room. Further media
coverage is also highlighted on the Cochrane website.
Journalists of members of the press who wish to receive news alerts or arrange an interview
with an author should contact the Cochrane press office ([email protected]).
Wiley also grants complimentary access to the Cochrane Library for journalists. For more
information please contact [email protected].
Cochrane Journal Club and Podcasts for Cochrane Reviews
Learn about the Cochrane Journal Club and Podcasts for Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Review
Groups are encouraged to forward suggestions for Cochrane Reviews that they think are
suitable for podcasting to Maria Burgess, Cochrane Editorial Unit ([email protected]).
Page 182/187
Featured Cochrane Reviews
Reviews may be featured in a CDSR editorial (and possibly accompanied by a Special
Collection), included in the list of New & Highlighted Cochrane Reviews on the Cochrane Library
homepage, or featured on the Cochrane.org homepage.
Inclusion in the Cochrane Library iPad edition
Refer to sections on Smartphone/iPad applications.
Social media activity
Cochrane uses popular social media such as:
Cochrane Library on Facebook
Cochrane Library on Google+
Cochrane Library on Twitter (@CochraneLibrary)
Cochrane on Twitter (@Cochranecollab)
Cochrane on Facebook
Cochrane on Google+
Cochrane material is also included in other social media routes including blogs, further
podcasts, RSS feeds, and Wikis.
Identifying Cochrane Reviews for centrally organized dissemination activities
Members of the dissemination team (mainly from the Cochrane Editorial Unit and Wiley) receive
an email alert every time a Review is approved by a Sign-Off Editor in the editorial workflow
(milestone E); see information about workflows.
The dissemination team then work together to identify Cochrane Reviews for dissemination
based on the importance of the research question, the findings of the review, and the impact the
conclusions may have on practices in healthcare and health policies.
Between milestone E and milestone H – when the Cochrane Review is marked for publication –
a member of the dissemination team will contact the Managing Editor of the responsible
Cochrane Review Group to agree the dissemination activity and the publication date for the
Cochrane Review if it requires central dissemination support.
Cochrane Reviews identified for dissemination activities remain under embargo until publication
of the Cochrane Review in the CDSR.
Activities co-ordinated by Cochrane groups or authors
Some Cochrane Review Groups organize dissemination activities for Cochrane Reviews
prepared and published by their groups; and Centres or Fields may also publicise selected
Page 183/187
Cochrane Reviews. These may include identifying key target audiences (e.g. decision-makers)
for a particular review and the preferred dissemination routes for the audiences (e.g. selected
emails, Twitter, blog posts).
Impact plan
One of the targets of Cochrane's Strategy to 2020 was to develop a dissemination checklist for
every Cochrane Review and pilot it with Cochrane Review Groups. This scope of this work has
been expanded and in recognition of the fact that the main focus should be to achieve impact
and that dissemination and impact need to be considered throughout the lifecycle of the review.
Cochrane is developing an impact plan resource to help Cochrane Review Groups and authors
disseminate their findings and achieve impact.
For more information contact John Hilton ([email protected]) or Julie Wood
([email protected]).
Kudos
Kudos (growkudos.com) is an online platform that helps authors disseminate research findings.
Kudos users create 'profiles’ for their published articles that help them to "explain, enrich and
share their publications for greater research impact". Authors can make articles more engaging
by adding short titles, lay summaries, and impact statements.
Authors are invited by email to ‘claim’ their work and add related multimedia content, such as
videos or links to related research, before being provided with guidance, templates and
trackable links to help share their article profiles via social media and email.
In April 2014 Wiley (publisher of the Cochrane Library) partnered with Kudos to help Cochrane
authors use the service. Wiley shared with Kudos the details of all new Cochrane Reviews
during the 2014 calendar year, and contact authors were sent Wiley-branded emails inviting
them to 'claim' their Cochrane Reviews on Kudos and make use of the Kudos system.
Following a good level of uptake (about 20% of Cochrane authors contacted claimed their
publications) the trial was extended into 2015 for all new and updated Cochrane Reviews.
Further reading:
See how Kudos can impact citations of your publications (Wiley Exchanges blog, April 2015)
Wiley partners with Kudos to help authors optimize article impact (Wiley Exchanges blog, March
2014)
For more information please contact Gavin Stewart at Wiley ([email protected]) or John
Hilton at the Cochrane Editorial Unit ([email protected]).
Page 184/187
Translation
For information on translation of Cochrane material, see the relevant section of this resource.
Impact factor
For information on the Impact factor of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews of
Intervention, see the relevant section of this resource.
About this resource
Sections in development
Chapter
Section title
Contact person
Development stage
Publishing model
Translation policies
Juliane Ried, The
Cochrane Collaboration
Development
Cochrane Review
development
Editorial process
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Editorial Unit
Cochrane Review
management
Ethical considerations
Development
Co-registration of titles with
the Campbell Collaboration
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Editorial
Unit
Development
Peer review
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Editorial Unit
Development
Dual publication of a
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Review by more Cochrane Editorial Unit
than one Cochrane Review
Group
Not yet started
Protocol templates
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Editorial Unit
Not yet started
Authorship and
contributorship
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Editorial Unit
Development
Criteria for authorship; Group
authorship; Authorship of
Cochrane Review updates;
Editors or editorial staff
authoring Cochrane Reviews
from their Cochrane Review
Group; More than one first
author; Change in authorship;
Minimum number of authors;
and Contributors listed in
Page 185/187
acknowledgements
David Tovey, Editor in
Chief
Development
Protection of human
subjects and animals in
research
Harriet MacLehose,
Cochrane Editorial Unit
Development
Feedback
John Hilton, Cochrane
Editorial Unit
Sign-off
Translations (repeated
above)
Juliane Ried, The
Cochrane Collaboration
Development
Conflicts of interest and
Cochrane Reviews
Full policy revised in June
2014. Still to complete section
on 'Editors or editorial staff
authoring Cochrane Reviews
from their Cochrane Review
Groups'
Correspondence,
dissemination, and
impact
Latest substantive changes
For a list of the latest changes on the Cochrane Editorial and Publishing Policy Resource,
please visit the Latest changes page.
How to get involved
We welcome feedback on any of the content included in this resource. We also have a number
of sections at different stages of development, each with a named contact person. Please email
the named contact person if you would like information about the section in development or
would like to contribute to its development.
Feedback and queries
The Cochrane Editorial Unit welcomes feedback and suggestions for improvement. For queries
relating to a specific section of the resource, please direct your query to the section editor listed
at the end of the section. For general queries, please contact Harriet MacLehose
([email protected]), Senior Editor, Cochrane Editorial Unit.
Acknowledgements
August 2013: On 20 August 2013, the Cochrane Policy Manual was replaced by this resource
and the Cochrane Organisational Policy Manual. Many sections included in this resource
Page 186/187
originated from the Cochrane Policy Manual, which had been maintained and developed by the
Central Executive Team. The Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) led the development of this
resource with assistance from Noémie Aubert Bonn (CEU intern, February to September 2013).
The CEU is grateful to those people who provided feedback on the resource as it developed
and to those people who prepared text for each section (see named individuals on each
section) or provided feedback on drafts.
The Cochrane Editorial Unit is responsible for maintaining and developing this resource.
Page 187/187
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)