2015 Editorial Process
Review Proposals
New title suggestions
Authors propose a review title to the Managing Editor.
CDCIG editorial team check that topic is in scope and not already covered (see essential notes for
prospective authors on website).
Title is rated for priority by co-ordinating editors and at least 3 members of the editorial board, who
are blind to the identity of the prospective authors. Amendments to the title may be suggested at
this stage.
If the topic is considered to be of high enough priority to the group, then we will invite the
submission of a review proposal form (RPF).
Review Proposal Form (RPF)
Authors submit RPF on invitation.
The RPF is anonymised and is circulated to appropriate editors for comments and rating.
When rating an RPF, the editors are asked to consider whether:
 authors have demonstrated understanding of the key issues related to the topic
 methods suggested are appropriate, with no serious omissions
 team contains people with suitable content and methodological expertise.
 (As far as possible, they are asked not to place weight on the quality of the English).
Co-ordinating Editor assesses the editors’ comments.
If appropriate, comments are sent to authors. We may ask for modifications and possibly a
resubmission of the RPF at this stage. If we feel that essential expertise or language skills may be
missing from the team, we may also suggest that the authors try to expand the team.
Authors are notified if the proposal is accepted or not. We aim to inform authors of our decision
within 3 weeks of submission of the RPF.
If accepted, the title is registered in Archie.
Intervention Protocols
1. Authors prepare draft protocol and submit for Editorial Approval with completed presubmission checklists.
2. Trials Search Co-ordinator writes search strategy – this may be done at or prior to
submission, authors liaise with TSC.
3. Editorial team comment on draft protocol, ME sends comments to authors for them to make
revisions if necessary and resubmit for Editorial Approval. This may take 1-2 weeks (in some
cases this step may need to be repeated).
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
ME (Managing Editor) sends to peer (and sometimes consumer) referees.
Peer Referees return comments to Managing Editor - this can take up to 4 weeks.
ME sends comments to Contact Editor (CE) for checking (1-2 weeks)
CE agrees comments can go to authors.
ME sends comments to author and if requested authors make revisions (1-2 weeks).
Authors make revisions if necessary and resubmit protocol for Editorial Approval and
provide a written response to comments.
Co-ordinating Editor assesses if protocol is acceptable for publication (1-2 weeks). Further
changes may be required at this stage.
Once protocol has been signed off, it is copyedited by Wiley. This can take 2- weeks
Author team checks copyedit
ME submits for publication and Licence for Publication forms are issued via Archie – all
authors need to complete these online in order to release protocol for Publication
Reviews
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Searches run by Trials Search Co-ordinator and results sent to review authors.
Conflict of Interest forms sent to authors for completion.
Draft review submitted to Editorial base with completed pre-submission checklists.
Editorial team comments on draft review, comments sent to authors for them to make
revisions if necessary and resubmit to Editorial Base. (In some cases this step may need to be
repeated.)
ME sends to two independent peer referees and one consumer referee for comments.
Referees' comments returned to the Editorial base within 3-4 weeks.
Comments sent to Contact Editor to be collated and added to if necessary, after which they
are sent to author for revisions (1-2 weeks).
Revised draft submitted to editorial base. N.B. The search date must be within 12 months of
publication. It may be necessary to do an update search at this stage and authors will be
expected to incorporate any relevant trials identified.
Co-ordinating Editor assesses if review is acceptable for publication (1-2 weeks).
Cochrane Editorial Unit (CEU) performs Quality Assurance check and provides comments.
Authors respond to any comments from CEU.
Co-ordinating Editor signs off review for publication, final version copy-edited and approved
by authors.
All authors complete Licence for Publication Forms.
Review released for publication.