The Editorial Process of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (The CHBG)

The Editorial Team of The CHBG and collaborators assess the quality of titles, protocols, and systematic reviews. Protocols and systematic reviews are peer-reviewed externally before publishing. Criticisms of published protocols/systematic reviews are also highly welcome. Such criticisms may be sent via the Comments/Criticism facility in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Editorial Team welcomes people from any region or background to contribute and assist with these tasks.

Titles
Authors send a request for a title registration to the CHBG Editorial Team office. Please complete the form here. Editorial staff evaluate whether the proposed title falls within the scope of the Group and must assure before registration that duplication of effort will not occur. In case Cochrane entities have objections to a suggested for registration title, they must be received within a fortnight after the title has been broadcasted through Archie - the Cochrane Collaboration's central server for managing documents and contacts details.

Cochrane Reviews are prepared in a developed for the purpose software, called Review Manager, ie, RevMan. All titles, protocols, and reviews are stored on Archie. Authors check the title out of Archie in order to work on their review in RevMan. Authors are advised to check in on Archie the review immediately after they finish working with it. In this way, the latest version of the review will always be stored on Archie and co-authors will always be able to read or downlaod the last prepared version.

Protocols
After having registered a provisional title of the systematic review, the authors are expected to submit a protocol for the systematic review within the next six months.

Information and knowledge on how to develop a protocol and perform a systematic review can be acquired by attending workshops of The Cochrane Collaboration, or by contacting the nearest Cochrane Centre, or by contacting The CHBG Editorial Team Office. The protocol has a series of standard headings.

Since 2008 it is also possible to register and work on diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Authors of intervention reviews are required to follow the methodology described in The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and authors of diagnostic test accuracy reviews are required to follow the Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Authors of these reviews should note that all chapters are not fully developed.

When a review protocol is finalised and approved by all authors, the contact author informs by e-mail Dimitrinka Nikolova at The CHBG Editorial Team Office that the protocol is checked in on Archie for further evaluation. Please check the protocol before submission using the checklist here. If the submission is approved, the protocol is peer reviewed by at least one editor ('Contact Editor') and at least two peer reviewers whose comments are sent back to the contact author. Authors are expected to answer the raised comments in a point-by-point manner in a cover letter that they send to Dimitrinka Nikolova by e-mail. The performed in the protocol changes must be highlighted or tracked, using the respective RevMan tools. The protocol must be checked in on Archie and marked for 'editorial evaluation'. The assigned contact editor and CHBG staff approve of the protocol or they may come up with further comments. Once the revisions in the protocol are approved, the review protocol is marked for publication in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews of The Cochrane Library and remains published also within the review when the latter is finalized and also published.

Reviews
Authors are expected to finalise the performance of the systematic review within 18 months after the protocol is published. The primary responsibility for identifying all potentially eligible trials for the systematic review rests with the authors. The authors are assisted by Sarah Louise Klingenberg, the Trials Search Co-ordinator. Sarah Louise Klingenberg supplies the authors with information on relevant trials from The CHBG Controlled Trials Register. The primary responsibility for applying inclusion criteria and assembling the data rests with the authors. When the systematic review is completed, the contact author informs by e-mail Dimitrinka Nikolova at The CHBG Editorial Team Office that the review is checked in on Archie for further evaluation. Please check the review before submission using the checklist here.If the submission is approved, the protocol is peer reviewed by at least one editor ('Contact Editor') and at least two peer reviewers whose comments are sent back to the contact author. Authors are expected to answer the raised comments in a point-by-point manner in a cover letter that they send to Dimitrinka Nikolova by e-mail. The performed in the review changes must be highlighted or tracked, using the respective RevMan tools. The review must be checked in on Archie and marked for 'editorial evaluation'. The assigned contact editor and CHBG staff approve of the review or they may come up with further comments before the review is sent out for additional comments to all the CHBG editors and consumer representatives. The received comments are forwarded to the contact author of the review in the way they are received; if needed, the contact editor, assigned on the review, may summarize the received comments. The final decision of publication of a CHBG protocol or review is made by Christian Gluud, the Co-ordinating Editor and the Editorial Team, considering the contact editor's recommendations and recommendations from the remaining editors. Once the revisions in the review are approved, the review is marked for publication in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews of The Cochrane Library.

Occasionally, peer reviewers and/or editors consider a review to be of inadequate quality and decide that it should not be published in its present form. Authors will be informed as to why this is so, and remedial action suggested.

Information for Peer reviewers
Peer reviewers who are requested to peer review and send comments on CHBG protocols or reviews may download the evaluation forms here:
Evaluation form for a protocol
Evaluation form for a review
Evaluation form for an updated review
When you are ready, please return the form by e-mail to Dimitrinka Nikolova. We do not need the material back.

Peer reviewing and conflict of interest
The CHBG has open peer reviewing, and once we receive the comments from the peer reviewers on the systematic review we exchange these to them. Furthermore, peer reviewers and The CHBG Editorial Team are both responsible for ensuring a fair peer reviewing process. That is why we request peer reviewers to state in writing whether they have or do not have any conflicts of interest when peer reviewing the protocol or the systematic review. The view that we share is 'declaring more is better than declaring less'. All peer reviewers receive a letter of acknowledgement that certifies their contribution to the protocol or the review.

Acknowledgement
From Issue 4, 2007 of The Cochrane Library, peer reviewers and contact editors of The CHBG protocols or reviews are acknowledged for their contribution in the Acknowledgements section of the protocol or review they have commented on. This is in order to create transparency of who has been involved primarily in the editorial process.

In the CHBG letter, requesting peer reviewers to comment on a protocol/review submitted for consideration for publication in The Cochrane Library, peer reviewers are informed that their contribution would be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section of the published protocol/review.

The bi-annual CHBG Newsletter is sent to all who have peer reviewed a CHBG protocol or systematic review as an acknowledgement.

All the records in the review process are kept within The CHBG Editorial Team Office. For more detailed information, please read the text under 'Editorial process'.

Updating
The Editorial Team reserves the right to remove any protocol from The CHBG Module if the final review is not received or is rejected, and to remove any systematic review that is out of date, after having requested the author to update the systematic review within a reasonable time (usually three months). The CHBG expects each group of authors to update their review(s) when new evidence appears or at least every second year. However, some topics may require more frequent updating.

In addition, the CHBG feels free to offer outdated titles, protocols, or reviews to any other team of authors with interest in them, unless the contact author or any of the co-authors have not informed in writing The CHBG Editorial team office about a possible delay.

A title should be developed into a submitted for publication protocol within six month of its registration.

A review should be developed into a submitted for publication review within a year and a half of the protocol approval for publication.

An update should be performed once in two years of a review publication or if the authors choose, as soon as new trails for inclusion are identified.

Comments & Criticisms
Anyone can submit feedback (also known as the Comments & Criticisms Feature)on Cochrane Reviews published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. This is like sending an electronic letter to the editor. For instructions, please visit The Cochrane Library. The submitted feedback will be sent to the Co-ordinating Editor and Group Co-ordinator. Authors will then respond and the whole correspondence will be added to the record with a future issue of The Cochrane Library. It is also possible to view the feedback.

Dissemination
The systematic reviews are submitted for publication in The Cochrane Library.

The CHBG Editorial Team encourages the widest possible dissemination of systematic reviews, and concurrent electronic and paper publication of systematic reviews in paper journals or in books meets with our approval. Until now there are endorsed co-publication agreements with the BMJ, Internet Journal of Gastroenterology, The Lancet, The Annals of Internal Medicine, The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, JAMA, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology. In case a systematic review, in which the CHBG has participated in the process of formulating the protocol and/or the systematic review, is submitted to a paper journal, the Editorial Team requests to receive a notification of this, and The CHBG expects to be acknowledged in the paper publication. The Editorial Team would, therefore, request that authors include in the acknowledgements of a paper journal a sentence like: 'This systematic review was carried out using the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration and The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in The Cochrane Library 20XX, Issue X. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.' Further, authors should obtain permission to publish their work from

John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. (c/o The Permissions Department)
The Atrium
Southern Gate
Chichester
West Sussex PO19 8SQ

POLICY
Please note that the aim of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group is to provide valid information on interventions for patients with liver or biliary diseases, clinicians, allied health professionals, and the public (ie, consumers). The contents of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group's publications are not intended to offer personal medical advice. The Editorial Team cannot respond to questions about individual medical cases, provide second opinions, or make specific recommendations regarding therapy. Those issues should be addressed directly with your health-care provider.