Review Group Co-ordinator

13

Co-ordinating Editor

1

Other Cochrane editor

0

Trials Search Co-ordinator

0

Cochrane reviewer

2

Other

9

Managing Editor

Review Group Consumer Panel Coordinator, Cochrane Reviewer, Consumer Network Member

Consumer reviewer

Cochrane Centre Staff

Consumer group review

Assistant RGC

Reviewer and editor

Secretary

Reviewer and reviewer support person

Once a week

3

Once a month

9

Once a year

2

Every time it is updated

1

Other

8

Occasionally

Several times a week

I looked at it once

Ad hoc, when in doubt

When preparing/updating a review

Rarely but our asst. RGC looks often

Whenever I’m copy-editing (once a month)

As required – e.g. for checking purposes

Never

11

Didn’t know about it.

Never see it, or may be it comes from different format from consumer groups review.

I use the on-line version.

9

I download it as a Microsoft Word file and use it on-screen.

1

I download it as a pdf file and use it on-screen.

6

I download it as a Microsoft Word file and print it out.

5

I download it as a pdf file and print it out.

2

Yes, I suggest the following

13

Stop it being a continuously evolving document. This makes it impossible to relearn/remember all the points. Fix it in stone for a year or two before making any revisions.

I wish it was easier to search for things on line.

To recognize the most important points and to give prominence to them; in fact to much rules to make the reader confused

Probably but don’t have any suggestions right now

Find it quite hard to find what I want on-screen, but resist the temptation to print it out as it’s updated quite frequently and paper copies become out-of-date. I could provide examples if that would help.

Some of it is not intuitively organized, but by using it online I can search it for what I want; no concrete suggestions – sorry.

Maybe the indexing could be changed. The alphabetic headings are not always intuitive. If (as per the Handbook) the guide corresponded to actual sections in the protocol/review, I think it would take less time to find the relevant answer to a query.

e.g. how to cite a reference is going to be questioned first when you are reading the Background – so why not, in a section marked “Background”, explain refs?

Another way to do it would be to have a division between purely grammatical points (maybe by having a separate “grammar book” which shows which way Cochrane prefers its punctuation and verbs) and stylistic points, formatting (including lists), names (including abbreviations and references), spelling

Sometimes it is difficult to find what you are looking for. Unfortunately I have no suggestions at hand.

No

12

Other

0

Yes

20

Most of the time. Sometimes there are obscure queries that the Style Guide couldn’t possibly be expected to address.

Yes – but sometimes find it difficult to find what I’m looking for – am unsure of the correct term ‘to find’

No, because

2

..it is forever changing

Yes mostly: but as described above it takes me a long time to find what I want to know.

In this way, the headings themselves are also inconsistent and confusing. Sometimes you will have purely grammatical or punctuation-related headings like “Commas”. But then if I have a question about colons I have to find my way to “Lists”. Admittedly if working online I could do a “find” on this as recommended, but I prefer to read from a hard copy to avoid having to switch between windows on my PC.

I also have a specific issue with the Headings Section (table is confusing – written examples would be better).

1. Some further help (examples) with prefixes would be good. E.g post/pre/intra operative.

2) Help with how to refer to sections of the review in the text (e.g. Background or Characteristics of included studies table).

My feedback was posted on the web site

2

My query was solved or my feedback taken into account

4

My query was not solved or my feedback was not taken into account

1

I sought the answer elsewhere

1

Other comments: 

Did not submit feedback; it has met my needs when I used it

Never posted a feedback

Very happy with the responsiveness and support of the Style Guide team.

I asked our RGC

One time a year

12

Two times a year

5

Three times a year

0

Four times a year

0

Other

4

Whenever necessary – I assume the frequency will decrease

Once every two years

Only when major changes or additions are needed

Twice a year or as required by important changes

Review Group Co-ordinators

20

Co-ordinating Editors

3

Other Cochrane editors

5

Trials Search Co-ordinators

2

Copy Edit Support  copy editors

11

Cochrane reviewers

8

Cochrane consumers

1

Other

2

But should be reviewers

I’d like to think it was reviewers, but our group’s experience is that they don’t seem to use it.

It is helpful to have changes/additions highlighted at the front – I prefer to have the guide printed out and prefer not to waste paper printing out the whole guide each time a new version is issued.

As someone who has spent over 20 years in book and journal editing, I think consistent style is important. It really isn’t happening with Cochrane reviews yet, so the style guide isn’t working too well. I look forward to more input from Wiley.

If you do not have a process for input from a consumer perspective, I would recommend establishing one. Very important that this perspective is represented and taken into account.

Fantastic idea. I just find it annoying that it has been updated so frequently. I use it all the time and recommend it to all my reviewers and editors.

It is a good thing that the CSG exists, but I wrote my reviews before consulting the style guide. I never took the time to check whether I adhered to all the rules. I admit that must have frustrated the co-ordinating editor, as she referred to this guide several times. I don’t know how to avoid this problem with other reviewers. I think adherence to the rules is harder for people whose native language is not English.

An excellent resource that relieves me of the burden of decision-making about style and punctuation issues. It’s a good idea to keep it concise and deal with ‘major’ copy-editing issues only.

I’ve always found it to be a much needed and valuable resource.

We encourage the use of the Cochrane Style Guide, as it helps a lot our work on translation. We are really aware of inconsistencies between reviews, and the Cochrane …?

As a new RGC, I’ve found it very helpful – thanks!

Once a week

1

Once a month

4

Once a year

3

Every time it is updated

4

Other

4

Once per review

Will familiarise with it more in future

When I copy-edit (once a month)

Before submissions

Never. If never, what are the

9

barriers to using it?: 

The RGC does all the copy-editing, so I don’t

I have not had the need for this.

As a reviewer, I try to ensure that my submitted reviews comply with the Style Guide and that it is edited to a professional standard. I don’t necessarily agree that it is the reviewer’s responsibility to run a copy-editing checklist (though no doubt some CRGs wish some of their reviewers did).

Haven’t looked at it.

Wasn’t aware of its existence.

Need to modify it to own needs but haven’t had time to do it yet

Yes

4

No

13

I made one for titles.

I look at the checklist when it’s updated, but have been doing the job so long that most of the items are indelibly lodged in the brain.

As a reviewer, I try to ensure that my submitted reviews comply with the Style Guide and that it is edited to a professional standard. I don’t necessarily agree that it is the reviewer’s responsibility to run a copy-editing checklist (though no doubt some CRGs wish some of their reviewers did).

Again, very handy for a new RGC.

Once a week

1

Once a month

5

Once a year

3

Other

10

Every few months

Occasionally

Several times a week

Never I did

Once for downloading and once for this survey

Ad hoc

About four times a year

As required

Only to access style guide

This is the first time because the following barriers prevent me to using it: 

6

No barriers. Haven’t had the need.

Just haven’t had the time.

Just haven’t really needed it.

Not aware about

Not barriers as such. More that the extensive nature of the guide leaves me rather reluctant to access more information.

Have just consulted the Style Guide.

Yes, I would like to see:

Training resources and further reading list

No

23

No responses.

Review Group Co-ordinators

20

Co-ordinating Editors

10

Other Cochrane editors

10

Trials Search Co-ordinators

10

Cochrane Consumers

12

Cochrane reviewers

13

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (publishers)

20

Other

5

Anyone else in a group (like me) with copy-editing as one of their specific responsibilities

May be all

Methodologist

RevMan / IMS people

Sorry that I have not had the time or need to follow its work closely.

Copy editing is a hard job, and it is quite difficult that everybody could be happy with the results.

I’ve ticked all but many people (e.g. editors etc) come under several categories (e.g. reviewers). My main suggestion is that people responsible for generating the software need to be involved/consulted.