Minutes of meeting of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
Providence, USA
2-4 April 2005
[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 13 May 2005.]
|
Advisory Group budgets |
|
|
Advisory Group, Cochrane CENTRAL |
|
|
[Advisory] Group, Cochrane Library Users' |
|
|
Advisory Group, code of conduct for committee members |
|
|
Advisory Group, Colloquium Policy |
|
|
Advisory Group, proposal for a Contact Information |
|
|
Advisory Group, Criticism Management |
|
|
Advisory Group, Handbook |
|
|
Advisory Group, Handbook guidelines |
|
|
[Advisory] Group, Information Management System |
|
|
Advisory Group, Quality |
|
|
Campbell Collaboration, liaison |
|
|
Central fund for receiving unrestricted donations |
|
|
Centres, commercial sponsorship of |
|
|
Centres, report from entity representatives |
|
|
Centres, request to see CCSG agenda papers in advance |
|
|
Chair of the Steering Group, report from |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, report from the |
|
|
Cochrane Library, CD-ROM testing and installation |
|
|
Cochrane Library, future strategy for |
|
|
Cochrane Review, Interactive Health Communication Applications for People with Chronic Disease |
|
|
Cochrane Reviews, plagiarism within |
|
|
Cochrane Reviews, plain language summaries of |
|
|
Cochrane Reviews, prioritisation of key topics for |
|
|
Cochrane Reviews, methods for updating |
|
|
Code of conduct for sub/advisory group and committee members |
|
|
Collaborative Review Groups, guiding principles for editorial teams |
|
|
Collaborative Review Groups, report from entity representatives |
|
|
Collaborative Review Groups, support for RGCs |
|
|
Colloquium, Dublin, 2006 |
|
|
Colloquium, Melbourne, 2005 |
|
|
Commercial sponsorship of Centres |
|
|
Consumer Network |
|
|
Contact Database, privacy statement |
|
|
Contingency plan |
|
|
Copyright, Information Management System |
|
|
Declarations of interest
by Steering Group members, |
|
|
Declarations of interest, standard format and template |
|
|
Developing countries initiative - analysis of survey results |
|
|
Discretionary Fund expenditure |
|
|
Donations, central fund for receiving unrestricted |
|
|
Elections, Co-ordinating Editor representative positions |
|
|
Elections, definition of constituency for CRG 'at large' reps on the CCSG |
|
|
Elections, publicising the number of votes per election candidate |
|
|
Elections, nominations for Co-Chair of the Steering Group |
|
|
Endorsements, policy on the granting of |
|
|
Entity representatives, verbal reports from |
|
|
Fields/Networks, report from entity representatives |
|
|
Finance, advisory group budgets |
|
|
Finance, cash flow forecast and continuation of current initiatives |
|
|
Finance, current financial position |
|
|
Finance, estimated expenditure for 2004-5; provisional budget for 2005-6 |
|
|
Funding Arbiter job description |
|
|
Funding Arbiter, report from |
|
|
Funding Working Party, remit of |
|
|
Information Management System, budget for future developments |
|
|
Information Management System, copyright of |
|
|
Information Management System, format of data delivered to Wiley |
|
|
Information Management System, entity modules |
|
|
Information Management System, monitoring and reporting from |
|
|
Information Management System, status of |
|
|
Jean Jones Prize |
|
|
Job description, Co-Chair of the Steering Group |
|
|
Job description, Funding Arbiter |
|
|
Job description, Ombudsmen |
|
|
Job description, Publication Arbiter |
|
|
Job description, Steering Group members |
|
|
Job description, Trading Company Directors |
|
|
Monitoring and Registration Group, report from the |
|
|
Monitoring and reporting, provision of standard reports from the Information Management System |
|
|
Monitoring the Steering Group |
|
|
Non-randomised studies and specialised registers |
|
|
Ombudsmen, job description for |
|
|
Ottawa Statement |
|
|
Plain language summaries, guidelines from Handbook Advisory Group |
|
|
Prize, Jean Jones |
|
|
Publication Arbiter job description |
|
|
Publication Arbiters, report from the |
|
|
Publicity leaflets |
|
|
Publishing Policy Group, report from |
|
|
Specialised registers, non-randomised studies and |
|
|
Steering Group mid-year meetings in 2007 |
|
|
Steering Group, entity representation on |
|
|
Steering Group, imbalance in number of outgoing members each year |
|
|
Steering Group, monitoring of the |
|
|
Steering Group, nominations for Co-Chair of the |
|
|
Steering Group, request from Centre staff to see papers in advance |
|
|
Steering Group, review of |
|
|
Steering Group members, job description for |
|
|
Strategic Plan, progress and priority setting for the next four years |
|
|
Terminology, changes in |
|
|
Trading Company Directors, issues raised by the |
|
|
Trading Company Directors, job description |
|
|
Treasurer, report on financial and legal matters |
|
|
Tsunami Working Party, report from the |
|
|
Website development project |
|
|
Website, training resources |
|
|
Wiley, format of data delivered from the Information Management System |
|
|
Wiley, report from |
Minutes of meeting of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
Providence, USA
2-4 April 2005
[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 13 May 2005.]
Present (Steering Group members shown in bold typeface): Godwin Aja, Lorne Becker, Lisa Bero, Mark Davies, Jon Deeks, Kay Dickersin (for items 13.10 and 22.1 only), Deborah Dixon (for items 10 and 11 only), Zbys Fedorowicz, Davina Ghersi, Sally Green, Jini Hetherington (minutes), Monica Kjeldstrøm, Carol Lefebvre (participating by telephone, for item 10.1 only), Steff Lewis, Jim Neilson (Chair), Jordi Pardo, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (for items 10 and 11 only), Nick Royle (CEO), Rob Scholten, Peter Tugwell, Herbert Turner (The Campbell Collaboration), and Janet Wale.
1.
Welcomes, apologies, and approval of the agenda
Jim welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Liz Waters had sent her apologies for absence, due to family
illness. Herbert Turner attended the meeting, on behalf of
The Campbell Collaboration, and everyone introduced themselves.
Jim explained for the benefit of newcomers that the Steering Group
mid-year meetings are a day longer than those held during Colloquia, in order to
provide more time for discussion and to provide an opportunity for strategic
planning, due to fewer distractions than during
Colloquia. er Turner washer;He
2.
Statements of potential conflicts of interest of CCSG members, IMS
Director, and Secretariat staff
No-one had anything to add to their existing statements
of potential conflicts of interest, which should be appended to these
minutes.
Action:
Jini
2.1 Standard format and template for
declarations of interest: Lisa explained the rationale
she had used in drafting a template for declarations of potential conflicts of
interest. It was agreed to provide declarations of interest
in this format in future, answering the questions in point form.
Lisa would make several minor amendments to the template and circulate it
to the Steering Group as soon as possible. This new format
will be adopted for the next Steering Group meeting in Melbourne, and members
should if possible send their declarations in this new format to Jini in time to
be included in the Steering Group module before the next module submission
deadline on 25 May 2005. The new format should also be
included in The Cochrane Manual. Entity representatives
should advise their constituents of the availability of this template for
possible use within their own entities, after receiving Lisa's amended
version.
Action: Lisa, Jini, Everyone
3.
Matters arising from the minutes of the Ottawa meeting, October
2004:
3.21.1 Plagiarism in Cochrane
reviews: Jini was
asked to request Mike Clarke to provide a progress report to the next Steering
Group meeting in Melbourne of the group working on the guidance to avoid
plagiarism in Cochrane reviews.
Action:
Jini
3.13 Prioritisation of key topic
reviews: Jim pointed
out that there were two issues: one was the capability of The Collaboration to
respond to an urgent need for evidence about specific health issues (which is a
recurring theme at meetings of the Funders' Forum); the second was
responsiveness to global initiatives about social determinants of
health. Liz and Peter had prepared a paper on the
latter. Sally reported that a plenary presentation on
prioritisation was being planned for the Melbourne Colloquium.
Peter applauded the energy and time that Liz Waters had put into the
discussion paper. He asked people to be on the lookout for
opportunities for The Collaboration to provide a rapid response, such as that
made by the Tsunami Working Party. Sally spoke for increasing
capacity to respond to priorities within existing entities rather than
establishing new ones. Collaboration in responding should be
promoted across entities. This item will be brought forward
to the next Steering Group meeting in Melbourne, when Liz will be present to
speak to it.
Action:
Jini
3.14 Developing countries initiative - analysis of
survey results: Jim
expressed appreciation to Joy Oliver and Taryn Young of the South African
Cochrane Centre for the thorough and concise analysis of the results of their
survey, and would write and thank them. It was noted that it
is still not easy for many people in developing countries to access the
Internet, let alone The Cochrane Library. Zbys drew
attention to the fact that different developing countries have different sorts
of challenges. It was agreed that the Monitoring and
Registration Group should work with Xavier Bonfill, Jimmy Volmink and Joy Oliver
to produce a paper for the next Steering Group meeting, defining the primary
objectives of a new entity which would have the remit to address the problems
experienced by people living in developing countries, including recommendations
as to the best way of achieving those primary objectives, either as a Field, an
advisory group, or some other type of entity. This would
subsume the existing developing countries initiative. An
amount of £5,000 had initially been committed to this work, of which £2,845
remains. Nick pointed out that Wiley will shortly be
providing information for the Collaboration website about how to access The
Cochrane Library in developing countries. Jini was asked
to check that there is adequate information on the site about the various ways
of participating in the work of the Collaboration.
Action: Jim, Sally, Jini
3.17 Policy on the granting of
endorsements: Nick
was asked to put points 6.3 to 6.5 of the policy that he had drafted, on the
granting of endorsements, into a standard document that can be sent to people
who seek the endorsement of The Cochrane Collaboration. Nick
would deal with simple endorsement requests, bring to the Executive for approval
any requests that are not straightforward, and maintain a record of all
endorsements on the website. This policy was approved with
the suggested modifications, and should be included in The Cochrane Manual,
including examples of acceptable and unacceptable use. The
entity representatives should circulate the policy to their
constituents.
Action:
Nick, Jini, Everyone
4.
Report from the Chair
Jim
expressed his gratitude to Kathie Clark for all her work as Co-Chair and
previously as Co-Convenor of the Monitoring and Registration Group.
He said that her valuable input would be much missed, and members of the
Steering Group echoed this.
Jim also reported on the
recent Global Health Forum meetings in Mexico, attended by several members of
The Cochrane Collaboration, including himself. There
had been much discussion and support there for the prospective registration of
trials and for the use of systematic reviews by policy makers.
Kay Dickersin had produced a paper by Karmela Krleza-Jerić of the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and her co-authors entitled 'Principles
for international registration of protocol information and results from human
trials of health-related interventions' (the 'Ottawa Statement') that would be
circulated to the Steering Group at the end of the meeting (see item 22.1
below). There would be a three-day meeting in May 2005 at
the World Health Organization, organised by Metin Gülmezoglu, about implementing
the prospective registration of trials. Jim had asked Gerd
Antes to represent The Cochrane Collaboration formally at this meeting.
Jim also reported on the two meetings in Providence that had taken place
just before the Steering Group meeting. These were with
members of the Consumers' Coalition and with the USCC Advisory Board; both
meetings had been constructive. The importance of raising the
profile of the Collaboration in the USA had been highlighted at
both. Lisa reported on discussions about the perceived lack
of responsiveness from the Collaboration. The relevance and
importance of Evidence-Based Practice Centers (EBPCs) in North America had been
discussed, and Jim reported that Jeremy Grimshaw and others are continuing to
work on possible ways of complementary working, and would report to the Steering
Group in due course. Janet reported on the decision of the
Consumers' Coalition at their Annual General Meeting the previous day to lobby
for national provision of The Cochrane Library in the USA.
There was discussion about the need for capacity building within and
across CRGs to grasp opportunities that present themselves when funds are
provided to do particular reviews. Jim emphasised the need
for dedicated funding when rapid reviews are needed, as volunteer authors cannot
be pressured to work to an agency's timetable. Peter and
Davina were asked to work with Lorne on seeking feedback from CRGs as to
whether, if the conditions were right, they would be willing and able to do
commissioned systematic reviews and, if so, to describe how they would
collaborate with others in the Collaboration to accomplish this.
Action: Peter, Davina, Lorne
5.
Report from the Chief
Executive Officer
Nick reported on
his activities since the last Steering Group meeting vis-à-vis publishing,
contract and policy documents, presentations and meetings, and strategic
alliances with the European Union, World Health Organization and others, as well
as the Collaboration's forward plan. Wiley had sent Issue 1,
2005 data to ISI and the final decision about obtaining an impact factor for the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is thought to be imminent.
Nick was asked to summarise the salient points of the contract with Wiley
to the Steering Group and the Trading Company Directors, as the number of people
on the Steering Group, who had been on the Publishing Policy Group when the
contract was signed, is reducing each year; he also agreed to make copies of the
contract available to CCSG members and Trading Company Directors on individual
request. He stressed that it would be important to regard
this information as confidential as there are commercial
sensitivities. Monica pointed out that the Trading Company
Directors had sought clarity about the terms of the Ovid contract, and Wiley had
provided this to Nick. He was asked to send details of the
contact person within The Cochrane Collaboration on prospective trial
registration to Herb Turner. He was also asked to circulate
the 'Cochrane Inside' logo to the Steering Group; the Publishing Policy Group
should endorse individual uses of this logo.
Action:
Nick
5.1 Remit of the Funding Working
Party: Nick reported that Gerd Antes, Mark Davies, Jon
Deeks, Jim Neilson and Nandi Siegfried are the current members of this working
party, set up to advise him, as the Chief Executive Officer, on funding
issues. It is due to meet next by teleconference on 25 April
and then during the Melbourne Colloquium. The remit of this
working party was approved.
6. Use of a central fund for receiving unrestricted donations
Nick explained that a usual key
purpose of setting up such a fund is to be tax efficient, although in this case
a central fund is being investigated to ensure compliance with the
Collaboration's sponsorship policy. As such a central fund
based in one country could not meet all the objectives of donors and the fund
itself, it could only operate within the tax regime of the host
country. He explained that it can be a simple process to set
up such a fund, particularly as the Collaboration had already registered itself
as a charity in order to benefit from the same tax regime. He
thought it almost impossible for an entity to do this itself in such a way that
it didn't look like a method of evading the commercial sponsorship policy; some
people disagreed. It was suggested that Cochrane Centres
could set up such funds to meet the requirements of national tax regimes and the
needs of regional entities, but this should be a matter for Centres to decide
individually. Nick would take forward the setting up of a
central fund with a draft memorandum and articles of association, a description
of how money gets into the fund and who makes decisions about spending it, with
very clear guidelines about setting up such funds locally. He
would distribute this description to the Steering Group in advance of the
meeting, to be discussed initially at the late June/early July Executive
teleconference. He will concentrate on the central fund and
follow this by doing the same thing for individual entities setting up such a
fund, together with Lorne, after the principles have been
established.
Action: Nick,
Lorne
7. Report from the Treasurer on financial and legal matters:
7.1 Spreadsheets of current
financial position: Jim explained that Jon had asked to join the Executive
in his capacity of Treasurer and it was agreed that this would be sensible;
given the added responsibility of this role, he will no longer be a member of
the Monitoring and Registration Group. Jon explained the
sharp learning curve entailed in gaining an understanding of the Collaboration's
financial processes, and appreciated the help he had been given by Jini, Nick
and Mike Clarke to induct him in this role. Steff applauded
the explanatory text that Jon had provided with the spreadsheets of the current
financial situation, and it was agreed that this should be provided routinely in
future. Jon explained that the Charity Commission had
arranged to pay a site visit to the Secretariat in April 2005, but had
subsequently cancelled this visit because the requested background papers
provided by the Secretariat had been so comprehensive that a visit was no longer
thought to be necessary. Jini explained that it had been a
very useful exercise to collate the papers for the visit, showing how much
information is available, and a subset would be provided to new Steering Group
members from October 2005 onwards.
Action: Jon,
Jini
7.2 Estimated expenditure for 2004-5;
provisional budget for 2005-6: Jon explained the process that he had used, with Jini
and Nick, in setting the proposed budget for the coming financial
year. He provided clarification to the Steering Group on
particular items of expenditure. Jon then displayed several
graphs showing the increase in sales of The Cochrane Library, the
increasing rate of royalty payments, the division of expenditure by category,
and the surplus of annual and cumulative income. He was asked
to separate operational from development costs on these graphs, to make several
other more minor modifications to them, and to circulate them to the Steering
Group. It was agreed that it might be useful to make some of the graphs more
widely available, perhaps at the Annual General Meeting in
Melbourne.
Action: Jon
7.3 Cash flow forecast and
continuation of current initiatives: Nick explained the details of these documents, drawing
attention to the balance currently available for new initiatives, of £104,766
over the period of the forecast (but see item 7.5 below).
The importance was stressed of linking expenditure to the Strategic
Plan. The issue of whether or not to continue to provide one
Colloquium sponsored registration fee to each entity should be revisited year by
year. Sally stressed how helpful it is for Colloquium
organisers to receive a sum of money in advance to pay, for example, the costs
of booking conference facilities. Davina asked for a
provisional budget to be included year on year for CENTRAL, but in allocating
funds recently for CENTRAL for one year, the Executive had agreed to reassess
the need for future funding in a year's time if a request for funds is made at
that time. There was discussion about raising the level of
the contingency fund to provide a cushion to help entities at risk, but it was
agreed that a better model was for funds to continue to be spread across
entities (via the provision of central services) rather than help being provided
to them individually.
7.4 Advisory Group requested budgets for 2005-6: Jon explained the reasons for under spends by Advisory Groups in the current financial year. Individual advisory group budget requests would be dealt with later in the meeting under the individual advisory group reports.
7.5 Confirmation of contingency
plan: Nick explained
that he had made the several changes that had been requested at the previous
Steering Group meeting in Ottawa. The principles outlined in
paragraph 6 were adopted, and the outline action plan at paragraph 7 was
approved. The size of the contingency fund was set at
£200,000, to include an amount for unforeseen circumstances.
It was noted that this impacted on the funds identified in
the cash flow forecast as currently available (see item 7.3
above).
Action: Nick
7.6 Discretionary Fund
expenditure: The
table of expenditure in the current financial year showed that there had only
been one call on this Fund in 2004-5. Steering Group members
were asked to publicise the existence of the Discretionary Fund again to their
constituents; the criteria for funding, which are described in The Cochrane
Manual, should remain unchanged.
Action: Everyone
8.
The Collaboration's Strategic
Plan
8.1 Progress and priority
setting for the next four years: Nick described the background to the Strategic Plan,
which had first been produced in 1996 and then updated by the Steering Group at
its meeting in Chengdu in 2002. Nick took the Steering Group
through the list of prioritised goals in the current version of the Plan,
activity by activity, identifying the appropriate people to act as liaison for
achieving each goal. He volunteered to contact all the
liaison people who had been identified, and work with them to identify what and
who should be involved in particular activities, and to develop a project plan
for achieving those tasks. As someone leaves the Steering
Group, Nick explained that he would identify other people on the Steering Group
to take on the activities for which the retired member had been liaison person.
Action: Nick
9.
Status of the new Information Management System:
Jim congratulated Monica and her
team at the Nordic Cochrane Centre for the progress that had been made with the
new IMS, as shown during her demonstration to the Steering Group the previous
day. He said this was one of the Collaboration's most
important current initiatives.
9.1
Entity modules: Monica reported on the huge
variation in the quality of entity modules and said that many could benefit from
some central copy editing and formatting. It was agreed that
the Publishing Policy Group should look at ways of providing some central
editorial oversight, and work out how best to communicate the plans for this to
all entities, providing regular prompts to them to update their
modules.
Action:
Mark
9.2 Format of
data delivered from the new IMS to Wiley: Monica
explained that the IMS development team wishes to continue delivering reviews to
the publishers in the RevMan format, as has been the procedure with Update
Software, and as is specified in the contract between The Collaboration and
Wiley. However, she explained that Wiley had expressed a
preference for receiving reviews in a format close to the one they would use for
publication. The Steering Group noted that the IMS team is
working closely with Wiley to resolve differences as to the format in which
reviews should be provided to them, and Nick was asked to discuss with Wiley
their responsibility for data-delivery issues.
Action: Nick
9.3
Monitoring and reporting: The Steering Group had
been asked to provide a list of standard reports that it would like the IMS to
provide. It was agreed to defer consideration of this for the
time being.
9.4 Budget for
future developments: Monica explained that she had
requested some additional funding to that displayed in the current cash flow
forecast, to enable the IMS to establish a maintenance platform in addition to
the development project. In the middle of 2006, it is
expected that the currently funded development phase will come to an end, and
the IMS will move to a maintenance phase. To allow new
development to take place as outlined in her report and in the accordance with
the Collaboration's Strategic Plan, Monica requested approval of an additional
£30,000 per year in 2006-07 and 2007-08 for this, pointing out that the Nordic
Cochrane Centre currently funds a larger proportion of the development costs of
the IMS than the Collaboration.
Monica left the
meeting at this point, and Nick raised the issue of ownership of copyright of
the IMS, as this may have a bearing on future funding for the IMS.
This will be a standing item on the agenda of future Executive
teleconferences until the issue of copyright of the IMS has been
resolved. In the meantime, discussion about new developments
should be postponed (see item 13.8 below).
Monica returned to the meeting and was asked to provide some
additional information to the Steering Group after the meeting, with advice from
Jon as to the type of information that is needed, and details of the additional
developments that the IMSG and the IMS team would like to
undertake.
Action: Monica,
Jon
9.5 Privacy statement for the
Contact Database: See item 13.13
below.
9.6 Copyright of IMS
software: Whilst assuring the Collaboration of
their continued wish to support the IMS project, the Rigshospitalet in
Copenhagen (the employers of the IMS team) had asserted their right to the
copyright and potential commercial exploitation of the IMS.
Nick is discussing this with the Collaboration's solicitors and undertook
to resolve the issue expeditiously and to report back to the
Executive.
Action:
Nick
10.
Report from the Publishing Policy Group:
10.1 CD-ROM testing and
installation: Carol
Lefebvre from the UKCC connected to the meeting by telephone to speak on behalf
of the Search Testing Group, and Deborah Dixon and Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert of
Wiley attended the meeting in person for this item. Jim and
Deborah PG both thanked everyone who had been involved in the testing of the
CD-ROM. Deborah PG explained that Wiley proposed asking
Update Software to produce Issues 2 and 3 of The Cochrane Library on
CD-ROM in April and July 2005 respectively. In the meantime,
they would work with the various testing groups to get the remaining bugs fixed
in order to produce Issue 4 themselves at the end of October 2005.
They were therefore asking for permission to give three months' notice to
Update Software on 30 April 2005, such that Issue 3 in July 2005 would be the
final version of the Update Software CD-ROM.
Mark
reported on behalf of Kathie Clark, ex-Convenor of the PPG, on the 'look and
feel' aspects of the CD-ROM. He thanked Kathie for all her
hard work in this regard. The PPG had identified some minor
problems but, with respect to their remit which covered 'look and feel only',
recommended giving permission to Wiley to issue notice. Jon
reported on behalf of the Statistical Methods Group on three statistical
problems: presentation issues to do with log scales and raw
data scales, incorrect labelling of confidence intervals in the table in the
text, and incorrect labelling of the sub-groups. However, he
thought these problems should not delay sign-off, as Wiley had committed to
sorting them out within the next few months. Carol referred
to the report from the Search Testing Group which recommended against sign-off
until the identified bugs had been fixed. The most serious
problem was that the Boolean operator 'NOT' did not work between set numbers,
and the Wiley engineers had reported that this could not be fixed.
In order to give adequate time for this and other bugs to be fixed, Carol
suggested that it should be possible for Wiley to give Update Software three
months' notice by mid-July. Deborah PG said that Wiley wished
to issue the notice now, confident that the bugs would be fixed before
October. Carol pointed out that there were some shortcomings
with the Wiley InterScience online version, so that the Update Software CD-ROM
was acting as the fall-back; if sign-off was granted now, there would be no
fall-back option after the notice period, even if the bugs were not
fixed. Deborah D said it would not be realistic to fix all
the identified bugs by the end of April; however, she considered that there was
ample time between now and October for Wiley to produce a CD-ROM that is fully
functional and bug-free, with the Update Software CD-ROM being the fall-back
option in the meantime. She said that Wiley were well over
budget as the result of having to continue to pay Update Software for producing
the CD-ROM. She considered the risk to be small in giving
Update Software three months' notice now. She questioned the
financial viability of the CD-ROM, as subscriptions had been declining steadily
in the past two years as users moved to the Internet platform, and asked the
Collaboration to work with them in view of the financial
implications. Davina asked whether Wiley could guarantee that
the problems with the CD-ROM could be solved, and whether TSCs could use the
online version in the meantime. Carol said that a substantial
number of bugs had been identified in the online version by the UK Cochrane
Centre testers, but Deborah PG said that these were being addressed as a matter
of urgency. She stressed Wiley's commitment to continue
investing the necessary resources and making their engineers available to sort
out the bugs. Jon clarified that the Statistical Testing
Group could go along with this timeframe. Carol disconnected
from the telephone at this point. Deborah D said that the
CD-ROM is becoming less and less financially viable; the contract allowed that
if the number sold falls below 500, Wiley could ask a third party or the
Collaboration to fund production costs; as sales were now below 500, this clause
could be enacted. Wiley are keen to work with The
Collaboration to determine who uses the CD-ROM and whether it is viable for the
majority of CD-ROM users to convert to using the online version.
Deborah
D and Deborah PG left the meeting at this point. The Steering
Group was unanimous in agreeing to give Wiley permission to issue three months'
notice to Update Software at the end of April 2005. It would
ask Wiley to continue working with the different testing groups to iron out the
problems, providing frequent progress reports. It should be
stressed to Wiley that priority should be given to making the online version
satisfactory to the TSCs, and to exploring providing the ability to store their
saved searches locally from the online version. Wiley should
also be asked to hold a training session at the Melbourne Colloquium on the
online version.
Deborah D and Deborah PG returned to
the meeting and Jim conveyed these decisions to them. He
stressed the importance of giving testers sufficient time in which to provide
feedback.
Action: Deborah D, Deborah PG
Jim
also conveyed these decisions to Carol the day after this discussion, by
telephone. Carol referred again to the fact that Wiley
engineers had said there was one major problem that they would not be able to
fix (the 'NOT' problem) which, in her view, needed to be fixed before
sign-off. Jim asked her to contact Nick, Davina and Steff to
resolve this important issue as soon as possible.
Action: Nick, Davina, Steff
Post
hoc note: Wiley has since advised that this issue has been
resolved.
10.2 Cochrane review - Interactive
Health Communication Applications for People with Chronic
Disease: Mark
reported on the extensive consultation that had taken place on this review with
various groups. The Steering Group approved that CRGs and the
Handbook Advisory Group should consider the recommended processes to be followed
if such a situation arises in the future, as they have major resource
implications. Sally stressed the importance of the
Collaboration supporting a Review Group in such circumstances, and would provide
Nick with suitable wording to add to the recommendations to be included in
Appendix 1. It was agreed that where there is a major problem
with a review, a press release should be issued proactively.
The communication management process was approved, and it was recognised
that it is human to make mistakes. Steff undertook to provide
an alternative wording for the definition of 'serious error', and the document
should be considered at the next meeting of the Publishing Policy Group, and
sent to the HAG before circulating it to all entities, removing reference to the
particular CRG. The need was highlighted for peer referees to
take particular time and care and follow a checklist when checking a review
before recommending its publication.
Action: Sally, Nick, Jini,
Steff
11.
Report from Wiley representatives
11.1
Report: Deborah D reported that Wiley is very happy with the way
things are going. The 2004 figures show that the
Collaboration received royalties in excess of the guaranteed minimum, i.e. in
excess of £500,000. There are several new sources of revenue,
particularly for reprints, e-prints and pay-per-view copies of Cochrane
reviews. From Issue 3, 2005 of The Cochrane Library
Wiley plans to distribute a survey to CD-ROM users on take-up
and use of the CD-ROM version and the complimentary copies issued to entities
each quarter. Deborah PG agreed to send a draft of this
survey to the PPG for approval before circulation. She should
ask Joy Oliver and someone from India and/or Thailand to review the survey from
the perspective of developing countries. Efforts will be made
to ascertain whether the preferred version of The Cochrane Library in
developing countries is the online or the CD-ROM version, and whether other
forms of the CD-ROM might provide better value to potential users, such as a
dedicated training version and a CD containing only Cochrane systematic reviews.
Item 5.1 (CRD databases):
Deborah D reported on progress with Wiley's negotiations with the Centre
for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). She said that agreement
had been reached with CRD regarding all revenue streams except for national
provisions. Wiley had discussed with CRD the possibility that
national provisions of The Cochrane Library could possibly be offered
with or without the CRD databases, and CRD would get a royalty on the additional
amount payable for a version of The Cochrane Library with CRD databases
as opposed to a version without CRD databases. Wiley are
investigating whether this option is viable from a technical
perspective. Some concern was expressed at the possibility of
there being different versions of The Cochrane Library available, and it
was agreed that it is time for the Publishing Policy Group (PPG) to explore the
value of the CRD databases to The Cochrane Library.
The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) is available free
of charge on the Internet and, with the increasing range of reviews in CDSR, it
is now perhaps less relevant for inclusion in The Cochrane Library; it
might therefore be worth considering what other material could be included in
The Library in place of the CRD databases. Monica
suggested that reviews in DARE could be linked to from CENTRAL, and Wiley agreed
to investigate this. Wiley will present some alternative
options to the PPG, with financial implications.
Item 5.4.1 (centralised copy editing):
There was discussion about the possibility of centralised copy editing
within the new IMS and RevMan 5. This would be discussed in
detail at the Melbourne Colloquium, together with how it would fit into review
groups' workflows, and should be discussed by the Co-ordinating Editors
beforehand.
Item 8.5 (usage
statistics): Deborah PG asked what information the
Steering Group would like to be provided with on a regular basis and how it
should be presented. It was agreed that additional usage
statistics should be provided showing in which countries
people have tried and been unable to access The Cochrane
Library. Sally suggested having an online form to survey
people over a brief time period, repeated periodically, asking them to provide
information about themselves and give their reasons for accessing The
Cochrane Library. Deborah D said that Wiley intended to
conduct usability testing on the InterScience interface, and would work on a
proposal with a consultancy company.
Communication
issues: Davina said that some RGCs and TSCs had had
difficulty in obtaining responses from Wiley. Nick
volunteered to act as liaison with Wiley in cases of future such
difficulties. Davina was asked to try to find out and
identify to Wiley the kinds of communications that had been
problematic.
Action: Nick,
Davina
11.2 Future strategy:
Deborah PG presented several ideas for future presentation of
separate aspects of Cochrane reviews, i.e. providing a more friendly 'front
end'. It was agreed that this was a high priority issue for
Wiley and the Collaboration. Deborah PG was asked to provide
some mock-ups for people to react to. Sally agreed to
circulate the Handbook Advisory Group's schedule for updating the Handbook to
the Steering Group and to Wiley, showing how the different initiatives are
co-ordinated. It was agreed that the membership of the
Handbook Advisory Group should include one or two people from Wiley with a view
to identifying opportunities for presentational issues, arising from being aware
of activities of the various working groups. Formation of a
sub-group of the Publishing Policy Group should be discussed at the next PPG
meeting, and a short document circulated thereafter to the Steering
Group.
Action: Deborah PG, Sally, Mark, Nick
12.
Election issues:
12.1
Nominations for Co-Chair of the Steering Group:
Jim highlighted the benefits of
having a CEO and a strong Secretariat, which had brought about a shift, from
former years, in Chairs/Co-Chairs having to adopt the responsibilities of both
'Chair of the Board' and 'Chief Executive'. Peter made a
brief presentation as to the due process that some Co-ordinating Editors had
suggested should be followed in appointing a new Co-Chair. It
was agreed that in future an outgoing member of the Steering Group should chair
the election for a new Co-Chair; in this case one of the Co-Chairs was being
replaced from April 2005 to October 2006, and the other from October 2005 to
October 2007, to ensure overlap between outgoing and incoming Chairs in future
years. Steff nominated and Sally seconded Mark, and explained
their reasons for doing so. It was agreed unanimously that
the Steering Group welcomed Mark as the new Co-Chair replacing Kathie Clark,
from April 2005 to October 2006. Mark also agreed to take
over immediately from Kathie as Convenor of the Publishing Policy
Group. Zbys nominated and Sally seconded Steff for the second
position of Co-Chair, and outlined their reasons for doing so.
The Steering Group voted unanimously except for one abstention for Steff
to become Co-Chair from October 2005 to October 2007. Jim
thanked Mark and Steff on behalf of the Steering Group for being willing to take
on the responsibilities of Co-Chair.
12.2 Entity representation on the
Steering Group: There was agreement that the Steering
Group should remain much the same in size, or that there should only be a modest
increase. Steff explained that the constituency of the 'at
large' representatives is unable to be defined, but it was agreed to maintain
the status quo as far as those two positions are concerned, pending review of
the Steering Group in the near future. Peter presented a
paper asking for several additional Co-ordinating Editor representative
positions on the Steering Group. One additional Co-ordinating
Editor representative position was agreed to, pending the review of the Steering
Group. Peter would present a paper that he had prepared on
reviewing the Steering Group to the Executive in May, and the Executive would
then agree on the process and set the timescale for this review.
The need for separate representatives for RGCs and TSCs would
be revisited as part of the review of the Steering
Group.
Action: Peter,
Jini
12.3
Publicising the number of votes per election candidate:
Lisa explained that the Centre Directors had advocated transparency
over the election process, by publicising the number of votes for all candidates
on the website. Other entity representatives
agreed. It was agreed to post this information, accepting
that some candidates might be upset in the process.
Action:
Jini
12.4 Imbalance in number of outgoing CCSG
members each year: This item was for information
only; no decision was sought at the present time.
12.5 Monitoring the
CCSG: See item
12.2 above.
13.
Reports to the Steering Group:
13.1 Tsunami Working
Party: Jim thanked
Sally and Mike Clarke for their report on behalf of the Tsunami Working Party, and thanked them both, and also
Pisake Lumbiganon, Prathap Tharyan, Paul Garner, Frank Archer and the other
members of the Working Party for their important work in this area.
The requested budget of £815 was approved, for two large teleconferences
that had taken place in January and February 2005. (Regular
teleconferences of the small working group have been supported by the
Australasian Cochrane Centre.) Sally would make arrangements
with Jini for this amount to be paid to the ACC.
Action:
Sally
13.2 Monitoring and Registration
Group: Jim thanked
Sally and Steff, the Co-Convenors of the MRG, for their comprehensive report,
and the requested budget of £10,000 was
approved.
13.3 Cochrane Central Advisory
Group: Jim expressed appreciation to Kay Dickersin for her
report on behalf of the CCAG. He explained that she is in a
difficult position as she both receives core funding for CENTRAL and is the
Convenor of the CCAG. He said that this is a similar position
of potential conflict to that in which Monica had found herself as both the
Director of the IMS and Convenor of the IMSG, and she had consequently
relinquished the latter role. It was agreed that it was
important to distinguish clearly between the USCC and the CCAG.
In his program of assessment of the remit and membership of all the
advisory groups, Nick was asked to assess the remit and membership of the CCAG
next, and Jim would advise Kay that this was being done.
Davina agreed that this is probably a good time for an assessment of the
CCAG, as the Group is in the process of considering its own remit.
Sally pointed out that other Co-Convenors might be in a similar position
of potential conflict to Kay, and Nick was asked to address this when making his
assessment of the remit and membership of each of the advisory
groups. Davina said that there had been some confusion among
TSCs recently as to whether or not the Steering Group had agreed that the
Collaboration should have a study-based register: this had
been agreed to as an aspiration, but at some point in the future rather than
imminently. It had not yet been decided whether or not this
could be integrated into the Information Management System.
Monica asked for these decisions to be clarified to the CCAG.
Steff said that a message would be sent to the Trials Search
Co-ordinators shortly on behalf of the CCAG, and copied to the Steering
Group. Nick was asked to clarify who owns the copyright of
CENTRAL. The requested budget of £2,000 was
approved.
13.4 Cochrane Library Users'
Group: Jim expressed
appreciation to Emma Irvin, the new Convenor of the CLUG, for her report, and
the requested budget of £1,600 was approved. In his new role
as Convenor of the PPG, Mark was asked to tell Emma about the various
suggestions put forward by Wiley the previous day for providing a more friendly
front end to The Cochrane Library, so that she could inform the members
of the CLUG of the new possibilities being considered. Since
Wiley will shortly be surveying users of the CD-ROM, Peter agreed to follow up
with Deborah PG as to how best to reach people without Internet
access. Godwin agreed to communicate with Joy Oliver at the
South African Cochrane Centre about the findings from her recent survey in this
regard, and to pass on any relevant information to Deborah
PG.
Action: Mark, Peter, Godwin
13.5 Colloquium Policy Advisory
Group: Jim expressed
appreciation to Claire Glenton and Steve McDonald, the Co-Convenors of the CPAG,
for their report. The CPAG is currently preparing an overview
of the different models of Colloquium. The requested budget
of £1,000 was approved.
13.6 Criticism Management Advisory
Group: Jim expressed
appreciation to the new Convenor, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin, for her report on
behalf of the CMAG. Lisa
said that the Group had been reinvigorated and the budget for teleconferences
had made a huge difference to their ability to consult and
communicate. She said the long-range plan was to get more
input from people about the new feedback system. Monica
raised the issue of amending the word 'Criticism' to 'Feedback' in the name of
the Advisory Group and also in the new IMS, which had been approved some time
ago but not yet implemented, and Lisa agreed to raise this with
Sherri. The Executive had already approved the requested
budget of £1,800 for the fifteen-month period January 2005 to March 2006.
Action: Lisa
13.7 Handbook Advisory
Group: Jim thanked
the Co-Convenors, Sally, Julian Higgins and Phil Alderson (former Co-Convenor),
for their report on behalf of the HAG and their hard work in this
area. All the requested changes in terminology were approved,
and should be implemented within the next two years, added to the next edition
of the Handbook, the Glossary, and the Style Guide, incorporated into the IMS,
and disseminated to all entities via CCInfo, Cochrane News, and the entity
e-mail lists. The new terminology should also be implemented
in The Cochrane Library, and Mark would raise this with Wiley in the next
PPG teleconference in May 2005. The requested budget of
£11,250 was approved.
Action:
Sally, Mark
Post hoc note: Collaboration-wide terminology changes are as follows:
From |
To |
| Collaborative Review Group |
Cochrane Review Group |
| Comments and Criticisms |
Feedback |
| Peer reviewer |
Referee |
13.8 Information Management System Group: Jim expressed appreciation to Mike Clarke for his report on behalf of the IMSG. It was agreed that all decisions about the special tables for the summary of findings in Cochrane reviews should be made by the Steering Group, via the Handbook Advisory Group. Nick was asked to defer consideration of the membership and remit of the IMSG (as part of his assessment of all the advisory groups) until after the roll-out of the new IMS. It was also agreed to defer consideration of the kinds of routine data that the IMS should provide, for the time being (see item 9.4 above). Nick was asked to seek advice from the Collaboration's solicitors about accessibility laws (see item 13.13). The requested budget of £22,830 was approved.
Action: Nick
13.9 Quality Advisory Group: Jim thanked Sally and Harriet MacLehose for their report on behalf of the QAG, and the members of the working group for the hard work that had gone into developing the CRG resources website. The requested budget of £1,000 for ongoing costs was approved; this budget is separate from the budget of £600 recently approved by the Executive for the Style Guide Working Group.
13.10 The Publication Arbiters: Kay Dickersin joined the meeting for this item, in her role as Co-Publication Arbiter with David Henderson-Smart. She summarised the background to the problems surrounding the review in question, which had first been published in October 2001, and explained that the update of this review contains additional information from the published review. She said that reports from three peer referees had all been constructive and remarkably consistent, as had the comments from the editors of the Review Group. Monica and Davina left the meeting after the short introductory discussion; Sally offered to withdraw also, as Director for the reference Cochrane Centre, but the Steering Group did not think this necessary. Kay suggested that the language used in the review and the historical context might be contributing to the lack of progress. Kay and David recommended that the author of the review should be given the opportunity to take the peer referees' comments into account and to update the review. They also recommended that the existing review not be withdrawn from The Cochrane Library in the interim. The Steering Group fully supported the Publication Arbiters' recommendations for bringing about a resolution between the reviewer and the Review Group, but the ultimate decision on publication sits with the editorial team. It was agreed that the Review Group should be encouraged to send an itemised list of what needs to be addressed for the review to be publishable, incorporating the points raised by the peer referees and also by the editorial team. In suggesting the revisions, the editors should offer the author assistance with language. If the author fails to act on the points on the itemised list within six months of receiving it, the Review Group's right to withdraw the review or to commission a new review team will be respected. The ultimate decision on publication of the revised review rests with the editorial team. Jim asked the Publication Arbiters to communicate these decisions to the author and the editorial team, pointing out the importance of speedy communication.
Action: Jim13.11 The Funding Arbiter: Mark described his activities in this role within the past six months. The Steering Group agreed with the Funding Arbitration Panel's recommendation that a review of the current sources of funding to reviews should take place among all CRGs. Lisa [Bero], who has just taken over from Mark [Davies] as the Funding Arbiter, agreed to undertake this with the Funding Arbitration Panel, looking at the funding sources of all existing reviews and feeding back to the CRGs. Peter volunteered the assistance of the Co-ordinating Editors' working group in this process. The decision had been made earlier in the meeting to add an additional member to the Panel; Lisa agreed to circulate a list of potential names to the Steering Group, and welcomed additional suggestions.
Action: Lisa
Post hoc note: Cindy Farquhar and Joaquin Barnoya have since been appointed to this Panel.
13.12 Cochrane-Campbell liaison: Jim thanked Herb Turner (hmturner@campbellcollaboration.org) for representing The Campbell Collaboration at this meeting. There was no objection to his adding the Steering Group e-mail address to his own mailing list to assist future communications.13.13 Proposal for a Contact Information Advisory Group: A decision about the proposal to establish an additional advisory group based on the model of the Criticism Management Advisory Group, to advise the Steering Group on policies and procedures pertaining to contact information about members of the Collaboration held in the IMS, should wait until Nick has obtained advice from the Collaboration's solicitors and passed it on to the Executive, since most of the issues confronting such a potential group relate to privacy and legal issues (see items 9.1 and 13.8 above).
Action: Nick13.14 Code of conduct for sub/advisory group and committee members: It was agreed that the Monitoring and Registration Group's document outlining the expectations of its members (contained in The Cochrane Manual) could be adapted for use by others. Jini was asked to arrange for this document to be circulated to all advisory group convenors, after any mention of the MRG had been removed from it, so that it could be adapted to describe the expectations of both advisory group convenors and members.
Action: Jini
14. Report on website development project
Jim expressed appreciation to Dave Booker for his report. The Steering Group agreed to communicate any decisions affecting the web projects through the CEO; to involve Web Team members in synopses and other public web-based presentation discussions; and to continue project funding as planned. Nick agreed to liaise with Dave and Jon and to circulate to the Steering Group by e-mail a concise description of the work that is going on and how the budget is being spent.
Action: Nick, Jon15. Reports from entity representatives:
15.1 Collaborative Review Group issues:
15.1.1 Guiding principles for CRG editorial teams: Sally reminded everyone that CRGs were to be encouraged to provide a similar set of guiding principles to that produced for Centre staff. Davina said a draft would be ready for discussion at entity