- Please review the library of current Cochrane Neonatal reviews before requesting a new review topic. If the topic is not yet covered, interested authors can submit a new title request. Please note: every review team must include an experienced Cochrane review author. Title requests are reviewed quartely by the editorial team. If interested in requesting a new DTA title, please email with the title first before filling out a DTA title request form.
Getting involved as a Review Author:
If you have expertise in some aspect of healthcare, consider joining the relevant Cochrane Group. Being part of a Cochrane group provides the support, resources and training to tackle a systematic review, and an international audience when your work is published in The Cochrane Library.
Resources for Cochrane Neonatal Review Authors:
- Cochrane Training for Authors - training modules for new authors on how to conduct and edit systematic reviews.
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions - the official guide to producing Cochrane reviews
- RevMan web page - documentation and support for software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews
- GRADEpro - (GRADEprofiler) is the software used to create Summary of Findings (SoF) tables in Cochrane systematic reviews
- Cochrane Style Resource - compare your Cochrane Review against the official style guide
- PRISMA - preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Using Individual Patient Data
- Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
- Predatory journals - This is a list, created in an effort to identify characteristics of potentially predatory journals. This list is not all-inclusive, but the authors note that it is a good place to start (Shamseer 2017).
Training resources provided by other organizations:
- Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness - an extensive guide by the NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination
Title registration requests are submitted to the Managing Editor and reviewed quarterly by the Cochrane Neonatal Editorial Board (October, February, May, August). A title registration form must be completed and submitted for each title. If the Editorial Board approves the title, the title is formally registered with the review author. The title is circulated via the Titles Manager system to formally announce that this title has been registered. Confirmation of the title registration is sent to the review author for signature and return to editorial office as confirmation of commitment to complete the review. Review authors are advised at the time of title registration that the neonatal editorial policy is that a protocol be submitted within three months from the date of title assignment and that the completed review be submitted by nine months from the date of protocol approval. A new review author is paired with an experienced review author as a co-reviewer where possible. All review authors who are new to the Collaboration are encouraged to attend a reviewer training workshop.
If there is interest expressed in doing a review title that has already been assigned, but this title has not yet reached the protocol stage, the editorial office will contact the review author to whom the title is assigned inquiring if it is possible to team the additional interested party as a co-author. This is encouraged where ever possible.
Submitted protocols are commented on by all four of the Cochrane Neonatal editors. During the development of the protocol, reviewers are supported by the editorial team with the provision of methodological advice and technical help as required. Editorial comments from the editors are submitted to the coordinating editor who then relays these comments on to the reviewer. Once editorial comments have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the editorial team, the protocol is submitted to The Cochrane Library.
Prior to completing a review, all neonatal reviewers are provided with information regarding our Model Teaching Review (replacing the previous document Reviewer/Editorial Guidelines) developed by the Cochrane Neonatal editors. This Model Teaching Review (currently being updated) is to be used along with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions when preparing a neonatal review. During the development of the review, reviewers are supported by the editorial team with the provision of methodological advice and technical help as required. All reviews submitted for editorial approval are commented on by all four of the Cohrane Neonatal editors on the editorial team, one of whom is our statistician.
Each review is also sent for peer referee comments. The peer referee is an individual with expertise on the treatment/intervention being reviewed. Since expanding our editorial team in 2017 to include neonatologists from around the world with a variety of clinical and research expertise, we are relying upon our associate editors to give editorial feedback and serve as peer referees for reviews within their area of expertise.
A checklist has been developed which is sent to the reviewer along with a detailed covering note from the coordinating editor which includes any issues that have been identified since the original publication of the review. With the release of the new RevMan5 software, this checklist is being updated and will be posted on our website when complete. This checklist is to be completed and submitted along with an updated review. The editorial office contacts the reviewers when their review updates are due.
For all reviews, review updates and protocols, copy editing is done at the editorial base prior to submission to The Cochrane Library. All reviewers are advised to carefully proofread their submission and refer to Cochrane Style Guide prior to submitting it to the editorial office. If any substantial editing to the content is felt to be necessary, the reviewer's approval is always sought prior to making any final edits.
Cochrane Neonatal can reject a protocol or review at any stage before publication. Please see the Cochrane Policy on the rejection of Cochrane Reveiws for more information.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine 2017; 15 (1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9