|
Information for peer referees
Guidelines for referees
The role of the referee is to provide feedback
to authors on the content and design of protocols and reviews.
Peer review is conducted by a variety of
people with the aim of incorporating their expert opinion on the
clinical, methodological and consumer specific aspects of the protocol
or review. Subsequently, the areas of comment may differ between
the disciplines eg. a consumer may comment on the difficulties associated
with the use of medical language for a lay person whereas this may
not be the focus of a clinical or methodological review. The Cochrane
Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) therefore encourages each referee to
concentrate their comments on the areas of the protocol or review
where they feel their input is most appropriate, rather than on
every section of the document.
Cochrane breast cancer group policy for
peer review
The CBCG has developed the following checklists
as a guide for referees conducting peer review of protocols and reviews.
This guide has been adapted from checklists produced by the Cochrane
Quality Advisory Group.
CBCG
checklist for peer review of a protocol
CBCG
checklist for peer review of a review
The following checklists are specifically designed for consumer peer referees:
CBCG consumer checklist for peer review of a protocol
CBCG consumer checklist for peer review of a review
Timeframe for peer review
The CBCG will negotiate the timeframe
for completion with each referee. The average length of time for a
full peer review process is 6-8 weeks, however this varies depending
on the number of available referees, the size of the review and other
factors such as deadlines for copyediting and module submission. Feedback
to authors is anonymous and each individual referee has the option
to view the protocol or review a second time to see the amendments
that the authors have made in relation to the referees comments.
The Cochrane Collaboration also has developed
specific information pertaining to the conduct of peer review. The
following is an extract from the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/hbook.htm.
This handbook also contains other valuable information for anyone
considering a role as a peer referee.
If you would like to contribute as a peer referee, please contact
Cochrane@ctc.usyd.edu.au
Information from the Cochrane reviewer's
handbook:
Peer review
It is important to have efficient arrangements
for criticising the reviews prepared by contributors to the Cochrane
Collaboration, and for amending reviews in the light of valid criticisms.
Opportunities for criticising reviews before they are published in
print are restricted by the number and competence of the referees
selected by editors. After a review has been printed, opportunities
for published criticism are usually limited to the few letters that
editors can accept for publication, or to book reviews, that are often
unhelpfully brief and non-specific. It is also frustrating that there
is no straightforward way in which the authors of printed reviews
can amend their reports after taking account of valid criticisms.
The Cochrane Collaboration aims to create
an iterative system through which successive versions of each review
will reflect not only the emergence of new data, but also valid
criticisms, solicited or unsolicited, from whatever source. This
process is facilitated by the contact details both for reviewers
and for editorial offices in each review. Successive versions of
a particular review, together with any intervening criticisms, will
be archived electronically.
Refereeing
There are no standard methods for refereeing
systematic reviews. However, several general principles merit mention.
First, peer review can be useful for several stages of the review
process: question formulation, protocol development, completion of
the review and updating. Second, peer review should include multiple
referees or editors with both methodological and topical expertise,
and with differing viewpoints. Some of the peer reviewers or referees
should be external to the CRG from which the review originates. Referees
should include people without direct financial, intellectual or personal
conflicts of interest concerning the topic being addressed. Statements
regarding conflict of interest are required in Cochrane Reviews and
CRGs may want to require these from referees. Third, explicit standardised
methods and checklists aimed at ensuring comprehensiveness and limiting
bias should be encouraged among peer- reviewers. Fourth, peer review
should be constructive, courteous and timely.
Specific areas to address at each stage of
peer review vary. The main issues to consider at question formulation
are whether: a) there is any overlap or potential duplication
of effort with another reviewer either within or outside the originating
review group; b) objectives are clearly phrased and include
all of the components of well-formulated questions; and c)
the review is likely to be feasible. Review at this stage can often
be accomplished quickly by a CRG's editorial team.
Reviewing protocols is more time-consuming,
and is done to ensure that background information is rational and
clearly presented, and that appropriate methods are planned for
identifying, collecting and synthesising data. Peer review at this
stage is particularly important to prevent methodological errors
that may not be easily remediable at later stages of the review.
Peer review at review completion includes a second critique of the
review's methods as well as a critique of the actual results, presentation
of results, discussion and conclusion. Critiques of completed reviews
are best done by multiple individuals, some of whom are external
and independent of the CRG. The importance of external peer review
of protocols may vary from CRG to CRG and within a CRG from review
to review.
Differences among referees' critiques should
be elucidated and reconciled whenever possible. Potential mechanisms
to use for reconciliation of different critiques are arbitration
by one or more of the editors or use of an additional independent
referee.
Consumers as Peer Referees:
Consumer feedback is valuable for each
protocol and review and the CBCG aims to get at least one consumer
to comment on each new submission prior to publication. The process
for consumer peer review is the same as that outlined above. Consumer
referees contribute an alternative perspective that encompasses
knowledge from various but objective viewpoints and which enhances
the quality of Cochrane reviews and protocols.
The Cochrane Consumer network has developed
specific resources for consumers wishing to participate as peer
referees. A full description of the role and steps involved in the
process can be found at http://www.cochrane.org/consumers/docs/cochrane.pdf
They have also developed a list of items which may be of relevance
when providing consumer feedback on a protocol or review. This can
be used in conjunction with the CBCG checklist.
Disclaimer |
|
