Central Editorial Service information for Review Groups

If a review is accepted onto the Central Editorial Service, we will support Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) to take this review to publication by providing editorial support and resources. The review still counts as a publication for that CRG.

The process is collaborative and communication between the Central Editorial Service Team and the CRG is key. Usually the editorial process, including peer review, will be managed through the Review Development workflow in Archie by a member of the Central Editorial Service Team. Content peer referees will be selected in collaboration with the CRG, who may wish to identify suitable peer referees or vet those selected by the Central Editorial Service Team. The CRG will be kept informed at each stage of the editorial process.

If CRGs wish to have increased involvement in the process this is something that we are happy to negotiate.

The editorial process is described in detail here. The key points are as follows:

  • The editorial process is collaborative, with the Review Group Network, constituent CRGs, and the Central Editorial Service Team working together to deliver priority reviews quickly and efficiently.
  • Eligible reviews must have a protocol, but this does not have to be published with Cochrane, as long as it complies with the Central Editorial Service policy on protocols
  • The Central Editorial Service has very stringent acceptance and rejection criteria.
  • We aim for 12-19 weeks from acceptance to publication for a standard intervention review, and 16-24 weeks for a complex review. Please read about our editorial process for further details.

Since the acceptance criteria for the Central Editorial Service are stringent, only a minority of reviews submitted are accepted onto the Central Editorial Service. For those reviews not accepted onto the Central Editorial Service, the CRG can decide on their course of action. A CRG may decide that they want to continue working with the author team and publish through the standard editorial process. They may also decide to not to take the review forward.