MAG minutes, 28 April 2003

Minutes approved on: 20 October 2003

Present: Clive Adams, Mandy Collingwood, Jane Dennis, Sonja Henderson (chair), Kate Hey, Kate Jewitt, Rasmus Moustgaard, Lois Sims.

In attendance: Claire Allen (minutes) and Monica Kjeldstrøm for item 5 only.

Apologies: Reive Robb.

Resigned since last meeting: Phil Wiffen

Contents:
1. Welcome and apologies
2. Approval of agenda
3. Approval of the minutes, and matters arising from MAG meeting on 14 November 2002
4. Potential conflicts of interest
5. Update on the development of the new IMS
6. Working arrangements with Wiley
7. Additional images
8. ModMan 4.2
9. Permission for publication forms: electronic version
10. Linking to other web sites from within modules
11. MAG mandate
12. Order of module guidelines
13. Any other business
14. Date of next meeting

Welcome and apologies

Sonja welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly Clive Adams (who replaced Phil Wiffen), and Kate Jewitt, for whom this was their first meeting. Apologies had been received from Reive.

Approval of agenda

The agenda was approved with no additions.

Approval of the minutes, and matters arising from MAG meeting on 14 November 2002

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2002 were approved with no amendments. Rasmus agreed to upload them to the web site.
Action: Rasmus

Matters arising from the minutes:

Item 3 - 4.c (Citation of withdrawn publications in The Cochrane Library)

Sonja explained that when protocols and reviews are withdrawn, they are cited as if they are full publications within the issue of The Cochrane Library in which they are withdrawn. She had asked Mike Clarke, as Convenor of the Publishing Policy Group, if this is intentional because MAG members felt that this is misleading. Mike had advised that it had been agreed that the withdrawn notice citation should continue to cite the current issue of The Cochrane Library. Assuming that archive versions are available, people could be referred to them through the withdrawn version. MAG members agreed that it would be helpful, therefore, if the issues of The Cochrane Library, in which the full Review has been published, are stated in the Published notes field with the reason for its withdrawal.

Records for withdrawn reviews, giving the date the record was first published, remain in MEDLINE. Lois explained that Update Software had changed systems recently, which would ensure that any review that had been submitted would always be displayed on The Cochrane Library, with a withdrawn notice where necessary. She agreed to send a message to CRGs notifying them of this change. Sonja agreed to ask Mike Clarke about (a) who is now responsible for archiving Cochrane Reviews and (b) who is now dealing with reprint requests. She also agreed to ask for guidance on what happens to reviews that Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) had removed from their Module.
Action: Lois, Sonja

Item 3 - 5.a (Feedback from the Quality Improvement Manager)

Sonja reminded everybody that it had been agreed that the 'Specifications for a tracking system' document would be revisited once the Quality Improvement Manager, Nancy Owens, had produced her final report; one of its aims being to identify 'best practice'. However, although Nancy had circulated her draft final report, it did not include recommendations on 'best practice'. Sonja reported that the Steering Group had discussed Nancy's report at their meeting in Melbourne and she agreed to find out if there are any implications from the final report that would need to be considered in updating and finalising the Specifications document.
Action: Sonja

Item 3 - 6.a (Tracking systems in current use)

Monica had been in touch with the relevant Group in Australia to find out about the web-based tracking system they had planned to develop. The person who had taken the lead on the project was no longer working in the group, and the project had been abandoned.

Item 3 - 7(a) (IMSG recommendations to the Steering Group)

Mandy had not had a reply from the Group that had been identified as having differences in their editorial processes, compared with the Gynaecological Cancer Group, to see if they could identify their editorial processes within the 'Specifications for a tracking system' document. It was agreed, therefore, that no further action needs to be taken.

Item 4.b (Membership of MAG - Representation)

Sonja had drawn up a conflict of interest statement, which she had circulated before this meeting. She agreed to remove Monica's name, and to add the following conflicts of interest:

Clive: Member of MeerKat Working Group, RevMan Advisory Group (RAG) and of an EU Group creating a Mental Health Library; his CRG has created a tracking system and also created databases to make the editorial process and identification of trials more efficient.
Jane: Peripheral member of the EU Group creating a Mental Health Library, and a member of the Campbell Collaboration.
Rasmus: Member of Information Management System Group (IMSG), RAG, and convenor of the Technical Implementation Advisory Group. Rasmus is employed to work on software development at the Nordic Cochrane Centre.
Action: Sonja

Rasmus agreed to add the conflict of interest table to the minutes and, if necessary, to update the Membership document on the web site. It was suggested and agreed that the potential conflicts of interest statement for each member should appear on the web site rather than be separated and included in every set of minutes, i.e. only one table should be maintained rather then two. Rasmus agreed to investigate adding the conflicts of interest column to the table on the web site, and Sonja agreed to raise at the IMSG meeting the issue of why it was not currently included for the members of the IMSG.
Action: Rasmus, Sonja

Item 8 (Additional validation checks)

Rasmus advised that validation checks have been added to the current version of ModMan.

Item 8.a (Sources of support document)

Rasmus advised that Jini Hetherington was copy editing the list of sources of support for typographical errors and duplicates. It was a huge job and Jini is still working with the Publishing Policy Group on it. He stressed the need for a computerised system to be devised in the future.

Item 9 (Feedback system for invalid e-mail addresses for contact reviewers)

Rasmus advised that this system had not yet been activated. Kate H agreed to draft a message to send to the contact reviewers listed in The Cochrane Library, explaining the need for a validation check of e-mail addresses. The draft would be agreed with MAG and Mark Davies, the reviewers' representative on the Steering Group first and would be sent after the building of the next issue of The Cochrane Library. Ideally, this message would be sent to the reviewers' list each quarter but it was agreed that it should be piloted first with the next issue.
Action: Kate H

Item 11 (Withdrawn protocols and reviews)

Mike Clarke had clarified that the guidance for withdrawn protocols and reviews is located in The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.1.6 (3.2 for protocols and 10.10 for reviews), but had pointed out that the current version is not yet on the Collaboration's web site. Sonja agreed to recommend at the RAG meeting that the guidance on how to withdraw protocols and reviews be included in the Cochrane Manual with only a note in the Reviewers' Handbook to inform reviewers that protocols and reviews can be withdrawn. Although reviewers need to be made aware that protocols and reviews can be withdrawn, they are not responsible for withdrawing them. She also agreed to ask Mike to explain the wording 'suspension of a review' as this seemed to be one reason for withdrawing a review rather than a separate action. Jane agreed to check what MEDLINE assigns to a record, if a review is no longer published on The Cochrane Library (withdrawn or removed). Once the outcome of the MEDLINE record was known, Sonja agreed to draft a replacement paragraph for The Cochrane Manual and The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook, and circulate it to the MAG for comment. Jane also agreed to find out if, and how, the British Library 'stores' The Cochrane Library.
Action: Sonja, Jane

Item 12 (SR and HM codes)

It was agreed to defer discussion of this issue until a representative of Wiley is present.

Item 14 (Modules on the web site)

Sonja explained that all entities had been sent forms to sign taking responsibility for copyright of their module.

Potential conflicts of interest

This had already been discussed under item 3.e above (Membership of MAG - Representation).

Update on the development of the new IMS

Update

Monica was invited to the meeting to update the MAG on the development of the new information management system (IMS), which had been approved, in principle, by the Steering Group. She reported that the Nordic Cochrane Centre is developing the system. The Steering Group has allocated the Nordic Centre top-up funding to allow the next stage of the proposal to take place. Rasmus explained that some of the new IMS's major components would be purchased from software already developed, and use them as platforms. The Steering Group had not yet addressed if and when parts, or all of the new IMS, should be made mandatory. Sonja agreed to ask the Steering Group to discuss this as a priority.

Monica reported that the report from the Quality Improvement Manager has been passed to the Quality Advisory Group for them to take the recommendations forward. For the time being the new IMS would be developed so that it would be flexible to accommodate a range of practices, but it could be modified to reflect policies on best practice when these become available.

It was agreed that all entities should be told the advantages of working within the new IMS system. Discussions took place about centralised systems versus individual systems. Sonja stressed the importance of having a meeting of Review Group Co-ordinators (RGC) and Co-ordinating Editors (possibly without representation from the Nordic Cochrane Centre), to discuss details of the development, and agreed to liaise with Davina Ghersi and Peter Tugwell. Discussion took place about what parts of the system should be mandatory, and it was agreed that the system could be phased in through modules (i.e. the Contacts Directory), in the first instance.
Action: Sonja

Sonja agreed to recommend to the Steering Group that the Quality Improvement Manager's work should be assessed, and a detailed workflow described as soon as possible. Kate J agreed to check Nancy's report for any examples of editorial workflows.
Action: Sonja, Kate J

Questions and answers paper

Rasmus was thanked for the work done so far on the Question and Answers (Q&A) document that he had prepared from the feedback from the UK RGC meeting in Warwick. This document had been circulated to the MAG and the three other RGCs who provided the feedback from small group discussions at the meeting. Rasmus agreed to circulate a revised document to the MAG for further comment and then to circulate it to RGCs before adding the document to the IMSG web site. He requested that any further comments should be sent to him before 5th May 2003. MAG asked him to include a Q&A on why the Nordic Cochrane Centre had been chosen to develop the system and to consider adding a section detailing the disadvantages to reviewers and RGCs.
Action: Rasmus

Workflow and Tracking system

Rasmus explained that when the tracking system is implemented, it will be part of the workflow system. The workflow system will be developed for different processes in The Collaboration. It is envisaged that there will be a collection of default workflows that can be customized on an individual CRG basis with support from the IMS team at the Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Nordic Cochrane Centre will also liaise with Wiley to ensure that any workflow agreements in the new publishing contract that might impact on editorial processes (e.g. centralised copy editing) are built in. MAG members felt strongly that they could not discuss and/or agree editorial workflow, standard templates for the system or individual CRG needs until the Specifications document had been updated and finalised in the light of the Quality Improvement Manager's 'best practice' report. There is an urgent need, therefore, for the document to be finalised and it was agreed that Sonja should write to the Chief Executive Officer to ask that priority be given to this part of the Quality Improvement Manager's report so as not to delay the development any longer, given the urgency for the tracking system to be developed.
Action: Sonja

Working arrangements with Wiley

Workflow model

It was agreed that the publishers should work closely with the Nordic Cochrane Centre because of the development of the new IMS.

Publisher's representative on MAG

It was agreed that there is an urgency to have a representative from Wiley attend future MAG meetings so that questions requiring input from the publishers could be answered. The MAG remit requires a publisher representative. Sonja agreed to raise this issue with the IMSG. Lois stepped down as publisher representative as she works for Update Software, the former publisher, but agreed to attend future meetings as a non-voting member until a representative had been sought from Wiley.
Action: Sonja

Additional images

Sonja agreed to ask for guidance on the use of additional images. It was agreed that additional images should not be linked to abstracts because the abstract is a stand-alone document. Sonja agreed to ask the RAG to provide a document setting out the advantages and disadvantages of using additional images. Rasmus suggested that the Nordic Centre could provide advice about images to RGCs initially.
Action: Sonja, Rasmus

ModMan 4.2

Current version of ModMan 4.2

Rasmus reported that in the current version of ModMan 4.2, there is a word count bug. The issue of complete module submissions versus sending only new or changed items was discussed, and Rasmus agreed to add this to the wishlist. However, it was agreed that not all groups would be able to define which items had been changed during the period in question.
Action: Rasmus

Wishlist

Rasmus reported that no items were outstanding on the wishlist.

Permission for publication forms: electronic version

Sonja reported that a new version of the permission for publication form was available, which reflected the new publishing arrangement. Sonja agreed to suggest to the IMSG that 'pdfFactory' be purchased for each CRG (at a cost of $36 per CRG) to allow CRG's to create PDF files of reviews for circulation during the editorial process and to generate electronic versions of the 'permission for publication' form. Since the permission for publication form in RevMan 4.2 must now be used but the use of RevMan 4.2 is not mandatory for reviewers, editorial bases will have to ensure that their reviewers use the correct version.
Action: Sonja

Linking to other web sites from within modules

The Airways Group had indicated that they wished to add sub-headings into their module linking to the British Thoracic Society web site, which cited guidelines referring to reviews prepared by members of the Airways Group. Lois explained that there is no reliable way of making links live in the text of a module, and Rasmus agreed to add it to the wishlist.
Action: Rasmus

MAG mandate

Sonja reported that after circulating the document more widely, she had received some suggested changes from Mike Clarke. It was agreed that 'deputy administrator' should be changed to 'a member of the Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat' and it was agreed that the section about the appointment and selection of members would be made more explicit.
Action: Sonja

Order of module guidelines

Carol Lefebvre had reported that the order of the module guidelines does not reflect the order in ModMan. Kate H agreed to investigate where the mis-matching occurred, and to add it to the wishlist if appropriate.
Action: Kate H

Any other business

There was no other business discussed at the meeting.

Date of next meeting

It was agreed that it might be appropriate for the MAG to meet in Barcelona. Sonja will canvass members' availability for the subsequent meeting.