Writing a review
On publication of the protocol review authors will be sent their search results. Reviews should be submitted within 12 months to the editorial base.
Please ensure that when your review is submitted it is of publishable standard and suitable for peer review by experts in the field.
Relevant Wounds resources at this stage:
- Cochrane Wounds editorial process flowchart for Reviews
- Guidance for writing the Search Methods section
- Plain language summary (PLS) aims to summarise the review in a style that can be understood by consumers of health care. Authors should consider the standards when reporting the content of reviews in the PLS (see PLEACS in Related Resources). Plain language summary example layout
- Pre-submission checklist for authors: intervention reviews - this should be submitted at the same time the final draft protocol is checked into Archie for editorial approval.
- Contributorship statement - the contact author should complete a contributorship form, detailing the individual contributions made by each member of the author team. This will be sent to the Contact author by the editorial base, usually at peer referee stage, or is available to download.
- How to complete your Conflict of Interest form
Cochrane 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. 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).
If a review does not meet the MECIR standards, it will be rejected or returned for corrections.