Our Editorial Process

Please note we do not accept unsolicited review titles, proposals or mansucripts via Editorial Manager

If you have an idea for a review proposal, we would be happy to discuss this with you.
Please read these essential notes and then contact Sue Marcus sue.marcus@rdm.ox.ac.uk  with your idea.
Please do not submit anything via Editorial Manager.

We have an equitable review registration process.

Essential notes for prospective authors

Before contacting us with an idea for a new review title, please consider the following:

1. It should be possible to express the title in one of the approved Cochrane review title formats.  If you cannot put your idea in one of these forms, then it is probably not suitable for our portfolio.

  • For intervention reviews, title formats are in the form [Intervention] for [health problem] with several possible elaborations.
  • For diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews, admissible title structures are given below. This does not preclude the possibility of admitting other titles and we are willing to discuss other possibilities. However, reviewers proposing other titles should be aware that considerable thought has gone into the structure of the template.

Example 1: Title: [Index test] for [Target condition (e.g. Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias)] in people with MCI [Study population] in community/primary/secondary care [Setting]

Example 2: Title: [Index test] for [Target condition] in people with suspected dementia in community/primary/secondary care [Setting]

Our reviews will be comparing the index test with a reference standard. These reviews will not include other tests as comparator tests. The reason for this is that currently there is no standard practice biomarker test or neuropsychological test available and making decisions on possible comparator tests is premature. You may find it useful to consult the Cochrane Handbook for DTA reviews when considering undertaking a diagnostic test accuracy review. 

2. Wherever possible, we strive to avoid duplication of effort within Cochrane, so please ensure that the topic is not already covered in a protocol or review published by us or by any other Cochrane Review Group. Rarely, a degree of overlap may be acceptable if it is likely that the review you propose will have a high impact among a particular group of readers and avoiding the overlap would reduce its usefulness.

3. In general, we will not publish reviews of pharmacological or other biological interventions which are at an early stage of development. Interventions of interest should be licensed or close to licensing. If the proposal concerns an intervention licensed for other purposes which is now suggested for use in dementia, then we will expect to see evidence that there is RCT evidence suitable for inclusion.

4. Cochrane has a strict conflicts of interest policy which prospective authors should consult when considering the composition of their author team.

For details of all the steps involved in producing a review,  please see our Editorial Process 2020 (word doument)

Cochrane reviews require a considerable time to produce so commitment is essential. Whilst we will do everything we can to support author teams, it is worth noting that the time needed to complete them is often more than expected.

Very occasionally we have to reject a review. Please see here the link to Cochrane's policy on rejecting reviews.

We have several author support documents prepared by the Cochrane Editorial Resources Committee. Please contact Sue Marcus sue.marcus@rdm.ox.ac.uk for these.