Guidelines for referees

Peer review is conducted by a variety of people with the aim of incorporating their expert opinion on the clinical, methodological and consumer specific aspects of the protocol or review. The areas of comment may differ between the disciplines e.g. a consumer may comment on the difficulties associated with the use of medical language for a lay person whereas this may not be the focus of a clinical or methodological review.

The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group therefore encourages each referee to concentrate their comments on the areas of the protocol or review where they feel their input is most appropriate rather than on every section of the document.

The Group has developed the following checklists as a guide for referees conducting peer review of protocols and reviews. This guide has been adapted from checklists produced by the Cochrane Editorial Resources Committee. If you would like to contribute as a peer referee, please contact cochrane@ctc.usyd.edu.au 

Clinical and methodological peer-referee checklists:
Checklist for peer review of a protocol
Checklist for peer review of a review

Consumer peer-referee checklists:
Consumer checklist for peer review of a protocol
Consumer checklist for peer review of a review

Consumers as peer referees

Consumer feedback is valuable for each protocol and review and the Group aims to receive at least one consumer to comment on each new submission prior to publication. Consumer referees offer an alernative perspective that encompasses knowledge from various but objective viewpoints and which enhances the quality of Cochrane protocols and reviews.

The Cochrane Consumer Network has developed specific resources for consumers wishing to participate as peer referees. A full description of the role and steps involved in the process can be found at https://consumers.cochrane.org/resources#train

Time frame for peer review

A simple outline of our editorial process for all protocols and reviews can be viewed here - Cochrane Snakes and Ladders.

Our Group will negotiate the time frame for completion with each referee. The average length of time for a full peer review process is 6 - 8 weeks however this varies depending on the number of available referees and the size of the review.

Feedback to authors is anonymous and each individual referee has the option to view the protocol or review a second time to see the amendments that the authors have made in relation to the peer-review comments.

Principles of refereeing and arbitration

There are no standard methods for refereeing systematic reviews. However, several general principles merit mention.

1. Peer review can be useful for several stages of the review process: question formulation, protocol development, completion of the review and updating.
2. Peer review should include multiple referees or editors with both methodological and topical expertise, and with differing viewpoints. Some of the referees should be external to the Group from which the review originates. Referees should include people without direct financial, intellectual or personal conflicts of interest concerning the topic being addressed. Statements regarding conflict of interest are required in Cochrane reviews and in some cases from referees.
3. Explicit standardised methods and checklists aimed at ensuring comprehensiveness and limiting bias should be encouraged among peer reviewers.
4. Peer review should be constructive, courteous and timely.

Differences among referees' critiques should be elucidated and reconciled whenever possible. Potential mechanisms to use for reconcialiation of different critiques are arbitration by one or more of the editors or use of an additional independent referee.