Criticism Management Advisory Group

Report to the Steering Group

1. How many meetings, and of what type (e.g. face-to-face, by teleconference), has your Advisory Group had since last reporting?

We have had email contacts. On January 21, 2005, with support from the CCSG, we held our first-ever teleconference. We plan to hold a face-to-face meeting at the Melbourne Colloquium.

Is this what you expected when you set your budget for the year?

We set our first budget this year, for teleconferencing.

2. Supply an up-to-date list of the members of your Advisory Group.

Lisa Bero (CCSG member), John Carlisle (Comments and Criticisms editors’ representative on EMAG), Gordon Dooley, Lelia Duley, Cindy Farquhar, Suzanne Fletcher, Sarah Garner, Sonja Henderson, Bill Hersh, Andrew Herxheimer, Gillian Leng, John McDonald, David Moher, Maryann Napoli, Melissa Ober, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin (Convenor), Ida Sim, Liz Waters (CCSG member).

3. Summarise any significant actions taken by your Advisory Group since your last report, and significant actions planned between now and the next meeting of the CCSG in Providence in April 2005.

Since our last report, we are thrilled to report that we have launched a new Comments and Criticisms (feedback) site for The Cochrane Library. The site is currently on-line; we have already received some positive responses to its implementation from feedback editors. The house rules that accompany the site were approved by the PPG at their meeting on January 24, 2005.

This exciting development was founded on the responses to the survey about the current system that we administered in spring, 2004 to the members of the CMAG, former convenor, Chris Cates, to cag@cochrane.edu, comcrits@cochrane.de, and all of the listed criticism editors and review group coordinators on the master list. Through the efforts of Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert and her hard-working team (including, in particular, Jennifer Shorten) at John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (“Wiley”) we were successful in integrating most of the findings of the survey through changes in the new site. In particular, in response to the survey’s findings, the site includes the following enrichments:

• Clearer instructions:
• Greater visibility of the comment button—now re-named “Add/View Feedback” with an icon on top and bottom;
• Review titles ordered by date;
• Department affiliation is voluntary;
• Easy to follow;
• Quite clean and user-friendly;
• Simpler, less administration required;
• Can view all feedback together on-line to encourage “cutting and pasting;”
• Importantly, feedback author must declare a conflict of interest, and is bound by the house rules, particularly posting on a public website;
• Includes email contact: CochraneFeedback@wiley.co.uk for followup if feedback not posted in 10 days;
• The communication patterns about the review, feedback, and acknowledgement are clearer [in conjunction with the feedback editor].

At present, at the suggestion of Kathie Clark, we are writing a news release for dissemination of the new site.

We will have the opportunity to revise the site further in March, 2005, in accord with the remaining recommendations from the survey and additional experience with the site.

With the assistance of Jini Hetherington, we have implemented a new system for updating the “master list,” a task formerly performed by Melissa Ober. Further, with Jini’s assistance, we have filled all of the open posts for feedback editors.

We are in the process of reviewing and revising the “Criticism Editor Handbook” (version 4.8), that was developed by Melissa Ober and her colleagues. We have been in contact with Sally Green about integrating the handbook with those for the CC as a whole.

Over the forthcoming full year, we intend to apply the results of the survey to proposals for revisions to the site (as detailed forthwith). Within the context of a new IMS and our developing relationship with Wiley, our specific plans thus include:

• Formalizing the process of feedback, using the handbook and the survey findings as guides
• Enhancing uniformity of the role of the feedback editor
• Enhancing the communication among CMAG members to enrich their contribution to the CC
• Exploring criteria for longer-term archiving of feedback
• Developing “citation credit” for feedback to increase its use (undertaken in conjunction with Wiley)

We have been in contact with Sally Green about the potential application of the feedback process to the use of Cochrane reviews for teaching and training in evidence-based medicine. This is an area that was suggested to us at the last IMSG meeting to which the feedback editors might also make an important contribution.

4. Does your Advisory Group have any questions that you would like the Steering Group to answer? If so, please list them.

None at present.

5. Does your Advisory Group wish to raise any problems, and recommended solutions, which you would like the Steering Group to discuss? If so, please list them.

None at present.

6. Do you foresee any problems in keeping within the budget you submitted for the current financial year (April 2005 to March 2006)? This is to help in the Steering Group’s planning of expenditure over that time period.

None at present.

7. What are your budgetary requirements for the period April 2005 to March 2006? Please provide a breakdown if appropriate. (As a reminder, the Steering Group sets the budget for each Group at its non-Colloquium meeting.)

We estimate holding one/two teleconferences in the current financial year just coming to an end, and two/three in the year April 2005 to March 2006. The estimated cost of four teleconferences is $3238 (approximately £1,685).

Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin

Convenor, CMAG

February 28, 2005