Editorial Process

Movement Disorders Editorial Process

Title registration

If you intend to perform a systematic review, we suggest that you become a member with Cochrane (see here on how to Join Cochrane) and that you read the Proposing and registering new Cochrane Reviews.

If you want to propose a review, you should submit a Review Proposal Form to the Editorial Base of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group (CMDG). The Editorial Base will analyze if the proposed review is within the scope of the CMDG and if there is not overlap with another review. The Editors of CMDG will then pronounce about the details of the Review Proposal Form and the results of their evaluation sent to the Managing Editor. 

Once all the concerns are addressed and the proposed review approved by the Editors and the Co-ordinating Editor, the title is registered with CMDG. The Managing Editor will inform the contact person about the title registration, will set up Archie accounts for the whole review team and send an email with information on how to get started on writing the protocol, where to obtain support materials and agreed deadlines.

After a title is registered, a Contact Editor is assigned to each Cochrane Review. The role of the Contact Editor is to provide support to the author team and to decide when the protocol/review is ready for peer review.

The Cochrane Movement Disorders Group is only accepting titles from authors that have specific training in conducting Cochrane systematic reviews.  The Contact Author should have previously published high quality systematic reviews (Cochrane and/or non-Cochrane) and/or have attended a comprehensive training course on performing Cochrane reviews. Our current policy is that there should be a minimum of three authors on a review team, at least one author must have expertise in the field of Movement Disorders and the access to a statistician is also required.

Authors are also encouraged to review Cochrane's Rejection of Cochrane Reviews policy.  The Cochrane Movement Disorders Group will reject a protocol or review at any stage for one or more of the following reasons: poor quality; agreed timelines not met; evidence that the author team lacks the core competencies to complete the review; concerns about conflict of interest or other aspects of publication ethics.


Protocol submission

The protocol is an outline of the review you intend to perform. Authors are strongly encouraged to consult the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane online learning modules and to attend a training course on performing Cochrane reviews.  The protocols and full reviews should be prepared and submitted using the Review Manager (RevMan), the software that allows you to enter the full text of your review and perform a meta-analysis, if applicable. Authors should ensure that the protocol meets the MECIR standards.The review protocol must be submitted within six months after the title registration.

Editorial base internal review

After submission for editorial review, the protocol will first be assessed by the Editorial base that will provide comments on basic formatting and style issues, methodology and statistical advice, and the Contact Editor checks the clinical content of the review, methods that are important to the content (choice of PICOS or subgroup analyses), results, discussion and conclusion. Comments will be returned to the authors, who are asked to respond to each of the comments from the Managing Editor and Contact Editor and submit a revised protocol.

Peer review process

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is a peer-reviewed publication and the CMDG follows the Cochrane Peer Review policy. This means that the process is open and every protocol or review will be evaluated by at least one specialist, such a clinician or an expert in the topic area, and also a statistician and/or methodologist, both external to the CMDG editorial team. We also aim to include at least one consumer reviewer in the editorial process. The protocol will be assessed following the methods and standards of Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). All peer-reviewers will be acknowledged in the published review as well as being listed on our website.

The Managing Editor will manage the peer review process and collate peer reviewer’ comments, for the Co-ordinating Editor’s approval, and send them to the authors of the review. The author team must respond to the review comments appropriately. Presently, a maximum of two rounds of revisions is expected to be done.

Once all appropriate revisions have been made and approved by the reviewers, the protocol is submitted for publication in the Cochrane Library.


Review submission

The editorial procedure for a Review submission follows the same steps as for the protocol submission. 

Cochrane Reviews should be submitted to the editorial base wherever possible within 12 months of the protocol being accepted.  If the Review is delayed, authors should inform the editorial base of the reasons for the delay. If the Review is not submitted within an appropriate period of time for the complexity of the Review, the editorial base will write to the contact author enquiring as to the difficulties in completion.


Updating Reviews

The authors of a Cochrane Review are responsible for maintaining the review and update it ideally every two years. If an author cannot maintain a Cochrane Review, he must inform the editorial base who will try to find another reviewer.


 Cochrane policy on rejecting reviews   

The Cochrane Review Group's (CRG) Co-ordinating Editor(s) can reject a Cochrane Review at any stage before publication (including unpublished protocols, unpublished Cochrane Reviews, and Cochrane Reviews that are being updated).

Authors should note:

·         Registration of a new title or drafting of the protocol for a Cochrane Review by a specific author team does not guarantee publication for that team. Publication of a protocol does not guarantee authorship or publication of the subsequent review; and publication of a Cochrane Review does not guarantee authorship or publication of an updated version.

·         Authors are free to submit elsewhere a Cochrane Review that has been rejected on the condition that no reference is made to the manuscript being a Cochrane Review.

·         A CRG has the right to register and publish a Cochrane Review on the same topic as a rejected Cochrane Review with a different author team.

For further information, please consult the Cochrane's policy on rejecting reviews (https://communithttps://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/rejection-cochrane-reviewsy.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/rejection-cochrane-reviews)