3.2.2.10 Forming an editorial team

The composition of an editorial team should reflect whatever consensus is reached at exploratory meetings of potential members of the Cochrane Review Group. An endorsement of this kind helps to ensure that the editors share the principles on which The Cochrane Collaboration is based: working together, building on existing enthusiasm and expertise, minimising duplication of effort, avoiding bias, keeping up to date, ensuring access, ensuring relevance, and continually improving the quality of its work.

In the light of current evidence, it is important for editors to recognise that they will need to spend the equivalent of approximately one half day a week in fulfilling their commitment to the smooth running of the Group, and in making sure that authors’ needs are being adequately met. The Co-ordinating Editor should allot additional time for working with and supporting the Managing Editor. As it is very difficult to help an author without ever having been responsible for a Cochrane review, editors should aim to have prepared at least one Cochrane review as soon as feasible after registration of their Cochrane Review Group. The Group should avoid selecting editors simply because they are well-known or are in command of a large research institution or group. There is no ‘limit’ on the size of the editorial team, but most Groups have between three and six editors.

Each Group should develop an editorial process through which protocols and reviews must be processed. Authors should be made aware of this process. These are written into each Cochrane Review Group module and published in The Cochrane Library. External peer review is mandatory for all reviews and should be used for protocols where either the editor, co-editor or author feel that it is appropriate. Each CRG editorial team should include a statistical or methodological consultant to deal with methodological issues. This person should be a member of the Statistical Methods Group.