IMSG, 16 January 2004

Minutes approved 18 May 2004

Present: Jacqueline Birks, Mike Clarke (Convenor), Andrew Cullis, Sonja Henderson, Julian Higgins, Monica Kjeldstrøm, Rasmus Moustgaard, and Elizabeth Pienaar.

In attendance: Claire Allen (minutes), Peter Friis, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin (for item 15), Jini Hetherington (for item 8), Pauline Howarth, Sukvinder Kaur (for items 1-7), Carol Lefebvre (for item 14), Nancy Owens, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, Jacob Riis (for items 1-7), and Nick Royle (for item 8).

Apologies: Gerd Antes, Dave Booker, and Kay Dickersin

Contents:

1. Welcome and apologies
2. Approval of the agenda
3. Potential conflict of interest for members present at this meeting
4. Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting (12 September 2003)
5. Update on the IMS development
6. Independent assessment of the Quickstream decision
7. Information Management System developed by the Schizophrenia Collaborative Review Group
8. IMS support staff and IMS training days
9. IMS communications plan
10. Report from the ModMan Advisory Group meeting (14 January 2004)
11. Report from RevMan Advisory Group meeting (15 January 2004)
12. Additional figures in Cochrane reviews
13. DOIs and splitting, merging and deleting Cochrane reviews
14. Specialised registers, CENTRAL and the IMS
15. Comments and Criticisms (Feedback) System
16. The Cochrane Collaboration web site
17. Bi-annual report to the Steering Group
18. Any other business
19. Date of next meeting

Welcome and apologies

Mike welcomed everyone to the meeting, and everyone introduced themselves. Apologies had been received from Gerd, Dave and Kay. Mike said that Carol Lefebvre would join the meeting, as a representative of Kay and the CENTRAL Advisory Group for the discussion of item 14 and that Sherri Shenfield Gorin would join by telephone for item 15.

Approval of the agenda

The agenda was approved with no additional items.

Potential conflict of interest for members present at this meeting

This table was discussed and changes were made as necessary.

Name	Group represented	Other group membership/roles	Other potential conflicts of interest
Gerd Antes	Steering Group	Director of the German Cochrane Centre	GCC is responsible for managing The Cochrane Collaboration�s web site. GA is line manager for Dave Booker, whose work may be affected by decisions taken by the IMSG.
Jacqueline Birks	Co-ordinating Editors	None	None
Dave Booker		Web master of The Cochrane Collaboration�s web site, employed at the German Cochrane Centre.	Job dependent on in-house web site development
Mike Clarke	[Convenor of the IMSG], RevMan Advisory Group (Convenor), Steering Group (Co-Chair)	Director of the UK Cochrane Centre; reviewer and editor in several CRGs.
Andrew Cullis	Publisher	Wiley Production Technical Group, Chichester, UK.	Publisher. May have preference for systems, processes and formats that streamline the publisher�s own publication infrastructure.
Kay Dickersin	CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group (Convenor)	Director of the US Cochrane Center.	Responsible for CENTRAL/CCTR, so work may be affected by decisions taken by the IMSG in relation to CENTRAL.
Sonja Henderson	ModMan Advisory Group (Convenor)	Review Group Co-ordinator for the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, which is the largest CRG in the Collaboration. Co-Convenor of the Style Guide Working Group.	Severe cut in funding to the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group may have implications on Sonja�s time resource available to the group.
Julian Higgins	Statistical Methods Group (Co-Convenor)	Co-Editor of the Cochrane Reviewers� Handbook; Editor for the Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group; statistical advisor and reviewer in several CRGs. Consultant to a commercial software developer.
Monica Kjeldstr�m	IMS	Director of the Collaboration�s IMS; employed at the Nordic Cochrane Centre.	Job dependent on in-house software development. Receives funding from The Cochrane Collaboration to co-ordinate the development of the IMS.
Rasmus Moustgaard	Technical Implementation Advisory Group (Convenor)	Employed to work on software development at the Nordic Cochrane Centre.	Job dependent on in-house software development.
Elizabeth Pienaar	Developing countries	Employed at the South African Cochrane Centre.

Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting (12 September 2003)

The minutes were approved with the following amendment:

The first sentence of item 4s should be changed to: 'Andrew reported that members of the Cochrane Library Users' Group had raised concern that hyperlinks to reviews may not always be up-to-date.'

Jacob agreed to make the edit and change the status of the minutes on the IMS web site.
Action: Jacob

Matters arising

Reviewers e-mail discussion list (item 4a)

Rasmus reported that the number of e-mail addresses that were blank or incorrect had decreased substantially after the first test message had been sent to the Reviewers' e-mail discussion list. Since that message, Mark Davies (the reviewer representative on the Steering Group) had not sent another test message. It was agreed that Mark should send a message, preferably about policy on a quarterly basis, and Sonja agreed to ask him to ensure that this is done. Rasmus would notify the CRGs of any email address failures that were identified by these messages, Julian will send the message about the new section of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook to Mark, when the Handbook is available on the Collaboration web site.
Action: Sonja, Julian

Status on developing country survey (item 4e)

Elizabeth advised that the report prepared by her and Valeria Marinho is available on the Collaboration web site. The project was presented at the Barcelona Colloquium, and the comments received were generally positive. Elizabeth agreed to send a message to CCInfo advising that the report is available on the Collaboration web site.
Action: Elizabeth

Reviews on institutional web sites (item 4p)

Andrew reported that Wiley staff are developing workflows for making .pdf files available, which could be provided to reviewers for inclusion on their institutional web site. However, before those .pdf files were made available, Wiley would require the Collaboration to decide how the .pdf files can be used, who can use them, and to give an estimate of how many files would be required. He advised that the .pdf files would not be available through Wiley InterScience. It was agreed that the IMSG would discuss this item at their next meeting and Mike agreed to add it to the agenda.
Action: Mike

Update on prospective copy edit pilot (item 4q)

Sonja advised that Laura Mellor (Desk Editor at Wiley) is now a member of the Prospective Copy Edit Group. She also advised that three meetings had been scheduled for 2004.

Digital object identifiers (item 4s)

Andrew reported that Wiley would discuss with Update Software whether existing hyperlinks to The Cochrane Library can be redirected if they have become out-of-date. If it is not possible, contributors may need to manually revise the links.
Action: Andrew

Copyright issues (item 5a)

Monica reported that she had discussed this issue with Nick Royle who is investigating this issue in relation to the work carried out by the IMS team at the Nordic Cochrane Centre as well as work on the Collaboration web site by the German Cochrane Centre.

IMS communication plan (item 5c)

Mike reported that the new co-convenors of the Criticism Management Advisory Group are Sherri Shenfield Gorin and Richmal Oates Whitehead.

Julian reported that the Handbook Advisory Group (HAG) had not discussed the issue of how a review is presented, at its meeting in Barcelona. He now has a draft list of soft headings and will ensure that this is discussed by the HAG. He confirmed that other changes will also be discussed, such as adding new higher level headings for the Methods and Results sections of Cochrane reviews. Andrew reminded everyone that suggestions for how reviews are displayed should be sent to Wiley in the first instance and, where necessary, these suggestions would then be discussed by the Publishing Policy Group.

Report from special meeting of RevMan Advisory Group on RevMan 5 and the structure of Cochrane reviews (item 6)

Nancy reported that she was unaware of any discussions within the CCAG about the structured format for references. Carol would be asked about this when she joined the meeting later. Monica advised that this is the last part of the specification needed for the new review structure in RevMan 5, and a decision is required in the next five weeks. Andrew agreed to look at how current reference structure is dealt with in the current XML format. Mike agreed to add this item to the next RAG agenda.
Action: Mike

Update on the IMS development

Peter updated the IMSG on the development thus far. The development will be phased in three parts. The core functionality for document management is complete and the IMS team are now developing the contact management system (Contact Database), which will feed into the document management system. Thereafter, the workflow system will be developed. This is scheduled to start in the middle of 2004.

Peter explained that documents would always reside either on the new IMS or in the reviewer’s version of RevMan. If a reviewer tries to upload an older version of their review, the system will alert the reviewer that it is not the most up-to-date version. It will be possible, with the assistance from the relevant RGC, to bypass the system in the unusual circumstances of the reviewer being unable to work on the primary version.

Monica confirmed that as soon as a review version is marked as ready for publication, reviewers will be able to check out a copy of this version with a new version number, and start an update. However, while the review is going through the editorial process, it would not be possible for the reviewer to check out the review, but she/he would be able to work on their own version in RevMan although this is not recommended. Nancy stressed the importance for the reviewer to keep track of any changes that are made in their own copy of RevMan so that these changes can be pasted changes into the primary copy at a later date.

Monica confirmed that the developing IMS will be placed on an Internet server and the IMSG would then be able to have remote access to it for demonstration purposes. It was agreed that there should be a dedicated meeting of the IMSG to view and discuss the developing IMS.

Sonja advised that it is important to provide regular updates to RGCs about the new IMS, as they will be key to its implementation.

Monica requested that any further specific comments or suggestions be sent to her. She will discuss these with the IMS team. Everyone congratulated the IMS team on the development work done so far.
Action: Everyone

Independent assessment of the Quickstream decision

Mike advised that an independent assessment had been commissioned of the IMS Team’s decision to use in house solutions, rather than commercial software for some aspects of the new IMS. This was at the request of the IMSG. He reported that Jon Godwin, a very experienced software consultant who had advised The Cochrane Collaboration in relation to its business plan in 2000 had done this. His report was given to the IMSG and it was agreed that this report clearly endorsed the IMS team’s decision and was highly commending of their work.

Information Management System developed by the Schizophrenia Collaborative Review Group

Sukvinder Kaur, a Research Assistant based at the Schizophrenia CRG, demonstrated the interim solution developed by the Schizophrenia Group to solve their problems with tracking Cochrane reviews in the editorial process. It had been developed in MS Access, and could be linked to other systems including contact details in MS Outlook, RevMan, and Meerkat. Sukvinder confirmed that any data entered into RevMan or Outlook would be accessible through the tracking system. The permission for publication forms can be created from the tracking system as .pdf files, and automatically sent to the contact and co-reviewers. She reported that the three most useful functions were the ability to send automatic e-mails, creation and sending permission for publication forms, and viewing all data on a single screen.

Sukvinder was thanked for giving this demonstration and for providing such a clear description of the Schizophrenia Group’s system. She agreed to send Monica a list of the standard reports available, a list of questions to generate those standard reports, a print out of each report, a screen dump of the screen start point, as well as the complete database system and the wish list for future developments.
Action: Sukvinder

IMS support staff and IMS training days

IMS support staff

Nick Royle (because of the funding implications of this post) and Jini Hetherington (because of her considerable experience of working across Cochrane entities), joined the meeting to discuss the proposal for IMS support staff and the provision of funding for the regional IMS training days. Monica reported that the IMS support staff would provide support for entities across the Collaboration. The proposal had been circulated in October 2003 to several discussion lists for comment, and details of the comments received had been included in the background papers for this meeting.

Monica reported that this issue had been discussed by the MAG on 14 January 2004.They had recommended minor modifications, but were supportive of proceeding with the proposal and inviting applications. MAG had suggested removing the second sentence in appendix 2, relating to number of hours to be worked. Sonja reported that concern had been raised about whether support should be local or centralised, but RGCs had stressed that they wanted support in their own time zone. Monica recognised that may be no (or not enough) appropriate applicants, but that the hope was that there is an untapped resource within the Collaboration. There was considerable discussion of whether more thought needed to be given to planning what the IMS support staff would do and what, for example, would be an appropriate travel budget for them. However, it was agreed that too much planning at this stage could be a wasted effort, since the options would be very dependent on the type and location of the applicants. Nick expressed concern that not enough was known about what is required and that more discussion was still needed, but Mike suggested that the current discussions were intended to be the final step in deciding whether to go forward with IMS support staff in principle and that, given the timetable for the IMS development and roll-out, a decision was needed at this meeting. It was agreed that this was the case, but was recognised that more discussion might be necessary during any selection process. Monica confirmed that there would be a pilot phase and evaluation of the post(s). She explained that it had been suggested that Centres should be identified that have staff with experience in writing training materials to assist the IMS support staff with the preparation of training materials.

Monica explained that an alternative to the post described in the background papers would be a full-time person. This would mean that some RGCs would not have telephone support during regular hours. Jacqueline raised concerns that training the IMS support staff would take a considerable amount of time, and that the RGCs might be learning about the IMS at the same time as the IMS support staff. Monica clarified that the intention was that the IMS support staff would begin learning about the new IMS in detail several months before the RGCs, if they were in post as planned. She also said that the support person(s) would not only provide introductory training, but also ongoing support.

Monica explained that she hoped to collect applications in February 2004, interviews would take place between March and June, with appointments being made in June and July. The timetable for the roll out of the new IMS begins in March 2005, and will run over three module submissions. Discussion took place on the amount of money allocated for IMS support by the Steering Group and whether or not the allocation included expenses. Monica recollected that the Steering Group had allocated up to £50,000 for staff costs and an additional amount for travel. It was agreed that a more accurate estimate of the probable costs would only be possible when the selection process had begun and that that the final salary would need to be decided as part of the selection process.

The IMSG agreed to move forward with the proposal. Jacqueline expressed her concern and unease with it and with the concept of IMS support staff and it was agreed that this would be noted.

Monica will make the agreed changes to the current proposal so that it could be used to invite applications. The revised proposal will be sent to the Steering Group for approval by email. If approved, it will be sent to CCInfo at the end of January 2004, with a deadline for applications of the end of February 2004. This would establish whether there are applicants with the necessary skills to justify the next step of convening a selection panel and would allow Monica to report to the Steering Group, thereby allowing discussion of probable costs, on 29 February 2004. It was agreed that the panel suggested in the proposal should be involved in shortlisting and that interviews could be held in connection with the IMS training days, where at least one member of the panel might be available.
Action: Monica

IMS training days

Monica reported that four IMS training days had been scheduled for the next five months. Where possible, these have been linked to pre-arranged regional meetings of contributors to The Cochrane Collaboration. These are before the UK Contributors’ Meeting in March, at the European Contributors’ meeting in May, in Canada in May, and at the Australasian Contributors’ Meeting in June. The purpose of each day is to introduce members of editorial bases to the new IMS, and will provide hands on training for the latest version. These training days will be followed up by workshops at the Ottawa Colloquium, when participants will be able beta test the complete system. Monica stressed the importance of editorial base staff having more than one introduction to the new IMS during its development. It was noted that the best opportunity for other Cochrane entities, in particular Centres, to learn about the new IMS would be at the workshops during the Colloquium, rather than at the IMS Training Days.

Monica explained that some CRGs had expressed concern about having insufficient funding to attend an IMS training day. She had discussed this briefly with Nick and Mike before the meeting, and there was a suggestion that limited funds could be made available (perhaps from savings within the IMS budget), to support travel expenses for one person from each editorial base to attend the IMS training day if they would not otherwise be able to attend. It was agreed that it would not be optimal for Monica to have to assess whether or not a CRG needed this funding. Therefore, it was agreed that Monica should announce the availability of limited funding and that requests for funding should be sent to her by mid-February. She would then propose to the Steering Group that they make additional funds available if any savings in the IMS budget were not sufficient to cover the funding required. Monica confirmed that the IMS training days had been scheduled to minimise the need for overnight stays.
Action: Monica

Sonja stressed the importance that a representative from each CRG attend an IMS training day. Monica agreed to establish a registration web site through the IMS web site, and contact those CRGs who do not register someone from their editorial team.
Action: Monica

Monica explained that the Canadian meeting was not being held in association with a regional meeting, as the CRGs involved had indicated that they would make funds available to attend a separate meeting.

Mike agreed to inform the Steering Group that the IMSG recommends the release of core Cochrane Collaboration funding for CRGs who would not otherwise be able to attend one of the IMS training days and that funds should also be made available for CRGs to attend the IMS workshops during the Ottawa Colloquium. Monica confirmed that the IMS team would be organising a series of workshops for the Colloquium.
Action: Mike, Monica

IMS communications plan

Monica explained that the IMS communications plan had been renamed the ‘Communications and Training Plan’. At present, the plan lists all communication scheduled to the end of October 2004. She agreed to circulate an updated plan to the IMSG later in January. When members of the IMSG have had a chance to comment on this, it will be uploaded to the IMS web site. Mike agreed to ensure that it continues to be a standing item on the agenda for future IMSG meetings.
Action: Monica, Mike

Report from the ModMan Advisory Group meeting (14 January 2004)

Membership of the MAG

Sonja explained that she had called for volunteers from Co-ordinating Editors, Criticism Editors, and TSCs. Dymphna Hermans had subsequently joined the MAG to represent TSCs, but there were no volunteers from Co-ordinating Editors or Criticism Editors. Mandy Collingwood has resigned from the MAG.

Name and remit of the MAG

Sonja reported that the MAG had started to discuss the appropriateness of its name. Concerns were raised that the name ‘ModMan Advisory Group’, might be perceived as a barrier to joining the group. No conclusion had been reached. In principle, the MAG had agreed to change its name as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the ModMan software no longer exists. The following names were suggested:
• Editorial Workflow Advisory Group
• Workflow Advisory Group
• Editorial Systems Advisory Group
• Editorial Management Advisory Group

Alongside a change to its name, the remit of the Group will probably be revised. Monica suggested that the name should not appear to limit the MAG to discussing workflows. Sonja raised a concern that the Quality Advisory Group (QAG) are establishing a working group to investigate best practice, and discussion took place of how the new MAG would liaise with that group.

Monica stressed that it was important that the new ‘MAG’ remains focussed focus on software systems. It was agreed that someone on the sub-group of the QAG should be represented on the new MAG. Sonja agreed that the revised remit would be submitted for approval by the IMSG at their next meeting. Mike was asked to raise the likelihood that MAG would revise its remit with the Steering Group in case there were any suggestions for others to involve in these discussions.
Action: Sonja, Mike

Terminology used in the new IMS

Sonja explained that a discussion had taken place in regard to whether ‘reviewer’ should possibly change to ‘author’. Julian suggested that before the new IMS is launched, the Steering Group should take the opportunity to reconsider terminology currently used by The Cochrane Collaboration. Mike agreed to include this suggestion in the IMSG report to the Steering Group.
Action: Mike

Report from RevMan Advisory Group meeting (15 January 2004)

Terminology used in the new IMS

See 10c above.

Issues surrounding dates in Cochrane reviews

It had been agreed that the section in The Cochrane Library which is labelled ‘Most recent changes’ should be changed to reflect the name of the section in RevMan (ie ‘What’s new’) and that it should be listed in the Outline for a Cochrane review. Mike agreed to raise this with the PPG.
Action: Mike

Table of summary findings

Mike reported that Paul Glasziou presented the proposal to include a ‘Summary of findings’ table (or ‘Balance sheet’) in Cochrane reviews. This would be a simple table summarising the results of the review. Concerns had been raised about the possibility that users might misinterpret the results and it had been agreed that good guidance would be vital. The inclusion of such a table would be a structural change to reviews and the RAG had agreed that this change should be made. This was agreed by the IMSG and it was clarified that the specification for RevMan 5 would support inclusion of more than one ’Summary of findings’ table in a review.

Date of revision

The RAG agreed that the date of revision should be ideally shown with options to indicate what kind of revision the reviewer has made. These would include ‘Substantive’, ‘Update’, ‘Comment added’, and ‘Response to comment added’. The date fields would include a date for when the review was most recently judged to be up to date, and it was agreed that the date of last search should also be included. This was accepted by the IMSG

Reference and study Ids

The RAG had agreed that the reference ID should be extended to 50 characters, and the study ID extended to 30 characters.

Statistics

It was agreed that a new statistical analysis should be included for dichotomous data (inverse variance method) and that a test for differences across subgroups should be added. These were accepted by the IMSG

Functionality in different sections of RevMan

Mike explained that a grid had been compiled of the types of functionality that should be available in each section of Cochrane reviews. This was accepted by the IMSG.

Structural changes

The proposed structural changes to reviews in RevMan 5 will be presented to the Steering Group in February, and Wiley will be informed of those that are accepted, in accordance with their need for at least six months notice. This is so that Wiley can discuss the implications for the structural changes, and how the changes would be implemented. The Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group has agreed to describe their requirements for software by the middle of 2004, which might lead to additional structural changes. She confirmed that the lead time for Wiley would still be more than six months. Andrew had agreed to work with the IMS team to discuss the draft Cochrane XML document (which can be delivered by the new IMS) to assess how that maps to Wiley ML (from which The Cochrane Library is published). Sonja pointed out that it is also important to note that new versions of RevMan will lead to additional workload for CRGs, which needs to be planned carefully. Monica confirmed that, at present, the planned release of RevMan 5 would be after the full roll-out of the new IMS.
Action: Mike, Monica, Andrew

Remit of the RAG

Mike reported that he had prepared a draft remit for the RAG to discuss. When the revised remit had been agreed, he would submit it to the IMSG for approval. The RAG had agreed to expand its membership to include a representative from the Methodology Review Group and the Screening and Diagnostic Methods Group in light of modifications needed for RevMan to cope with Diagnostic and Methodology reviews, respectively.

Additional figures in Cochrane reviews

Monica had circulated a background paper with a checklist prepared by Simon Newton. She explained that the IMS team and Wiley would revise the checklist in accordance with recommendations from the MAG, RAG and IMSG. Monica explained that revisions included the requirement for a copyright caption, the addition of an item about complying with the statistical guidance for analyses figures and the need for reviewers to ensure that the appropriate link is embedded in their review. She agreed to send the final version to the HAG and RAG for approval.
Action: Monica, Andrew

Andrew and Pauline reported that Wiley are not currently quality assessing each additional figure, and are publishing them at the moment unchanged. They are more likely to check the figure after it has been published, and Andrew explained that any quality assessment would not be intended to become a rejection process but, rather, a chance to improve any with which there are problems, and that it may be possible to do this within the copy editing project. Monica agreed to circulate the revised checklist to CRGs before the February module submission deadline, at the same time, encouraging CRGs to participate in the copy-editing pilot. Sonja agreed to link from the style guide to the checklist, and Julian agreed to include it in the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook. Rasmus agreed to add the checklist to the RevMan web site, along with the links to other statistical guidance.
Action: Monica, Sonja, Julian, Rasmus

DOIs and splitting, merging and deleting Cochrane reviews

Andrew had circulated a background paper. Peter pointed out that the DOIs themselves would not contain a full merging and/or splitting history for a review, but that this would be available within the new IMS. Andrew explained that the Wiley XML could eventually hold the additional information relating to the DOI so as to establish bridges to the chains of reviews and protocols. He agreed with the importance of the new IMS holding history information. It was agreed that the DOI could be created by the new IMS, when the protocol is first submitted for publication. Andrew confirmed that if an assigned DOI did not reach the publisher, it will never become live, would not exist but could be re-used for another document. The new IMS would maintain information on any lost numbers, along with a history of why the relevant protocol or review was not published. It was agreed that it would be useful to produce a document detailing the best practice about splitting and/or merging reviews. Julian agreed to raise this with the HAG, and Mike agreed to add it to the agenda for the next RAG meeting. In the meantime, if anyone had scenario for the merging or splitting of reviews that are not in Andrew’s background paper, they should send these to him by the end of March. Sonja agreed to canvass RGCs and Jacqueline agreed to canvass Co-ordinating Editors for suggestions. Mike agreed to add this item to the agenda for the next IMSG meeting.
Action: Julian, Mike, Andrew, Sonja, Jacqueline, everyone

Julian raised the idea that protocols could be revised alongside their reviews to indicate any changes to the methods of the review that would be followed during its updating. It was agreed that this was an item for future discussion and Julian agreed to discuss it with the Handbook Advisory Group. Deborah questioned the relevance of a revised protocol to the user.
Action: Julian

Specialised registers, CENTRAL and the IMS

Carol Lefebvre joined the IMSG for this item. Mike thanked her for attending the meeting at such short notice in the absence of Kay and he apologised for not having ensured that she had sufficient advance notice of the issues to be discussed. Mike explained the urgency to finalise the specification for RevMan 5, so that the Steering Group could take the necessary decisions in February 2004. He reminded the IMSG that Kay had offered to discuss with the CCAG the possibility of structural changes relating to references within RevMan and to consider if there was a suitable list of journal names that could be packaged with RevMan. Carol advised that these items had not yet been discussed. Carol agreed to raise these issues with the CCAG urgently, using the relevant minutes from the RAG meeting of September 2003, as a prompt. Rasmus agreed to send the relevant minute and the document showing the current structure used to store references in RevMan to Carol by 20 January 2004. Carol also agreed to ask the CCAG for advice as to how Internet publications should be cited in RevMan. Mike agreed to email Kay about the urgency of these items.
Action: Carol, Rasmus, Mike, Kay

Comments and Criticisms (Feedback) System

Sherri Shenfield Gorin joined the meeting by teleconference. Mike welcomed her and explained to the group that she and Richmal Oates Whitehead were the new Co-Convenors of the Criticism Management Advisory Group (CMAG). Everyone introduced themselves to Sherri.

Sherri explained that she was interested in any suggestions or advice from Wiley, the IMS team and the IMSG and needed to know what each wanted the CMAG to discuss. Deborah confirmed that she would like to follow up on discussions held in Barcelona, where Wiley were asked to investigate a new solution for the comments and criticisms. She explained that since October, Wiley have developed a prototype system and feedback on this is now required. She requested a quick turnaround, as the current system is not active. Deborah agreed to investigate making the prototype available to CMAG members. Sherri explained that she and Richmal would not be able to discuss the various requirements until early February, but would then send e-mails to the CMAG to initiate discussion. Deborah agreed to send details of the meeting held in Barcelona to Sherri and Richmal.
Action: Deborah, Sherri

Monica explained that the IMS team needed input from the CMAG into the workflow model, including how comments are handled by editorial bases and the timelines they work to. Monica told Sherri that the IMS team will be working on the workflow module from May 2004, so ideally Sherri and Richmal should try to describe the work of the criticisms editors as a series of steps, before then. Sherri agreed to help Sonja to identify a Criticism Editor to join the MAG, and Sonja agreed to send Sherri and Deborah the Pregnancy and Childbirth CRG workflow for their Criticism Editor (which appears in their module). Monica agreed to add Sherri and Richmal to the IMSG e-mail discussion list, and Nancy agreed to send Sherri the details of the US Contributors’ Meeting in April 2004.
Action: Sherri, Sonja, Monica, Nancy

The Cochrane Collaboration web site

In the absence of Gerd nor Dave, Monica reported that the IMS team and Dave have had regular meetings to discuss the IMS and Collaboration web sites. She advised that the minutes of the last meeting (1 December 2003), are on the IMSG web site. Mike agreed to ask Gerd and Dave to provide a progress report for the next IMSG meeting.
Action: Mike

Bi-annual report to the Steering Group

Mike explained that he was currently preparing the IMSG bi-annual report to the Steering Group, and he would include the following items following this meeting:
• The possibility that the remit of the MAG will be changing to incorporate workflows, as well as software.
• A request for funding for travelling to IMS training days for CRGs and a recommendation that funding be made available, if necessary for attendance at the IMS workshops during the Ottawa Colloquium.
• The specification document for the changes to the review structure in RevMan 5, describing the implications for contributors to the Collaboration.
• Formal welcome of the Co-Convenors of CMAG into the IMSG.
• The opportunity presented by the new IMS to reconsider some of the terminology used within The Cochrane Collaboration (e.g. ‘reviewer’).
• The IMSG budget for the next financial year. This will be based on the current year’s budget, revised to reflect changes in travel and accommodation costs. In presenting this budget to the Steering Group, Mike would report that the IMSG is not supportive of reimbursing members of subgroups and advisory groups for the time spent at meetings but that it supported, in principle, the reimbursement of Convenors of software groups for their time spent at meetings, where the provision of resources would allow their normal workload to be done by someone else.
Action: Mike

Any other business

Continuous vs quarterly publication

Mike asked if the release of RevMan 5 in 2006 was likely to be at a time of continuous or quarterly publication of The Cochrane Library. Andrew and Deborah reminded the IMSG that Wiley would revisit the idea of continuous publication in the future, but that it was unlikely that this would have been adopted by 2006. However, it was agreed that this should be kept under review and Mike agreed that the IMSG would discuss it again in 2005.
Action: Mike

Funnel plots being visible

Julian agreed to consider whether funnel plots should be displayed as graphs in The Cochrane Library, and to make a recommendation to the next RAG meeting.
Action: Julian

Date of next meeting

Monica reported that the IMS team and Wiley would be meeting in May 2004. Mike agreed to canvass for IMSG members' availability for a meeting in May and the possibility was raised that this might be in Copenhagen since the main item on the agenda would be a demonstration and detailed discussion of the new IMS. It was agreed that the Wiley/IMS meeting should be before the IMSG meeting, and Monica and Sonja agreed to discuss whether the next MAG meeting should be before or after the IMSG meeting.
Action: Mike, Monica, Sonja