Peer review for Cochrane protocols and reviews
All Cochrane Wounds protocols and reviews are commented on by external peer reviewers prior to publication. External reviewers are not expected to have expertise in systematic review methodology, but are asked to comment on the the accuracy of the perception of the issue and the interventions under review, the planned parameters for studies to be included in the final review (inclusion criteria - populations, interventions, study designs and outcomes), and general 'readability' of the protocol, and review thereafter, from the perspective of a potential end user of the review.
If you would like to be an external reviewer for our protocols and reviews, please contact the Editorial Team or complete our contact information form which includes a space for you to indicate which topic areas are of interest to you.
We are constantly trying to improve the quality of our output and an important part of this process is the feedback on our protocols and reviews, which is provided by our peer reviewers prior to publication. Our reviewers may be experts in a particular field, or healthcare users - both provide a valuable contribution and help to ensure that our reviews are useful and usable.
We are aware that our reviewers have busy work schedules and so, as a peer reviewer, you would normally only be asked to comment on one protocol and one review per year. We provide guidance for referees, use a structured feedback form and acknowledge their contribution, both in the review and in the Cochrane Wounds entry in the Cochrane Library.
Guidance for external peer reviewers is available.
The Cochrane Editorial Unit has recently completed a review screening process, screening 300 reviews since September 2013 for issues such as:
1. Undeclared and potentially important departures from protocol.
2. Communicating uncertainty and the interpretation of statistically non-significant results.
3. Inconsistency within the text of reviews.
4. Integrating GRADE methods and quality of evidence ratings in reviews.
The resulting documents, an overview of common errors and good practice, and guidance with examples to illustrate how to draw on GRADE methods are available here. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page.)