Criteria for registration of new titles
*Please note, from 24 August 2021 until further notice, we are not accepting any new review proposals. The relevant links on this page have been de-activated*
We aim to produce only high priority, high impact reviews. In order for a new title to be accepted, we expect it to be supported by a strong case for registration, for example an urgent healthcare need or priority topic identified by policy-makers or guideline developers.
We expect the review team to have at least two authors and include the following expertise:
- a high standard of English;
- statistical skills;
- methodological skills;
- clinical knowledge/practice;
- at least one experienced Cochrane author;
- and, where possible, a multi-geographical team.
We expect authors to check the title they are proposing for potential overlap with existing reviews before submitting a title [by searching the Cochrane Library]. For all new titles registered after 14 October 2020, all authors must meet the terms in the CoI Policy for Cochrane Library Content (2020): see here for more information. The review must not be dependent on external deadlines, such as a PhD thesis; we expect authors to adhere to Cochrane and PaPaS deadlines.
Cochrane is moving its editorial process to the online submission system Editorial Manager. Potential authors interested in submitting a review proposal to PaPaS should log in to Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and select Submit New Manuscript. For further information see the instructions for authors on submitting new proposals. If we are interested in your initial proposal we will invite you to submit a full review proposal via an online form within Editorial Manager. The editorial team will:
- assess the proposal against our scope (we may forward it to another group if it falls outside our scope);
- check for potential overlap with existing reviews;
- assess the skills of the author team;
- clarify its priority as a topic;
- check that all sections of the review proposal form have been adequately and competently completed.
If more than one team proposes doing the same review, PaPaS advocates collaboration. If this is not possible, any conflict is resolved through discussion.