IMSG 15 November 2002

Minutes approved on: 11 February 2003

Present: David Booker, Chris Cates, Mike Clarke, Kay Dickersin, Sonja Henderson, Julian Higgins, Monica Kjeldstrøm (Convenor), Steff Lewis, Rasmus Moustgaard, Elizabeth Pienaar, Mark Starr, Phil Wiffen

In attendance: Claire Allen (minutes), Andrew Cullis, Mary Lawrence

Apologies: Gerd Antes

Contents:
1. Welcome and apologies
2. Approval of the agenda
3. Potential conflict of interest
4. Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting (25 June 2002)
5. Wiley's proposal for copy editing
6. New IMS
7. Matters arising from the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) meeting
8. RevMan and other matters arising from the RevMan Advisory Group (RAG)meeting
9. Information Technology (IT) survey of developing countries
10. Cochrane Collaboration web site
11. Comments and criticisms
12. Any other business
13. Date of next meeting

Welcome and apologies

Monica welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly Andrew Cullis, Kay Dickersin, Mary Lawrence and Steff Lewis. It was Kay's first meeting; Steff was attending on behalf of Gerd Antes (as a representative of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group); and Andrew Cullis (Production Technical Manager) and Mary Lawrence (Senior Journals Production Manager), were attending the meeting as observers on behalf of John Wiley and Sons. Apologies had been received from Gerd Antes.

Approval of the agenda

Mark suggested that items 5 and 6 changed places, so that the current item 5, Wiley's proposal for copy-editing, became the first proper agenda item. The agenda was approved, with this change.

Potential conflict of interest

Name	Group represented	Other group membership/roles	Other potential conflicts of interest
David Booker		Web Master of the Cochrane Collaboration's web pages, employed at the German Cochrane Centre	Job dependent on in-house web site development
Chris Cates	Criticism Management Advisory Group	Reviewer and statistical editor in the Airways Group
Mike Clarke	RevMan Advisory Group (Convenor), Steering Group (Co-Chair)	Editor of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook; Director of the UK Cochrane Centre; reviewer and editor in several CRGs
Kay Dickersin	CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group (Convenor)	Co-Director of the New England Cochrane Center (Director, Providence Office)
Julian Higgins	Statistical Methods Group (Co-convenor)	Co-editor of the statistical section of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook; Editor of the Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group; statistical advisor and reviewer in several CRGs
Sonja Henderson	ModMan Advisory Group (Convenor)	Review Group Co-ordinator of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, which is the largest CRG in the Collaboration	Involved in the North West of England copy-editing pilot
Monica Kjeldstrøm	(Convenor of the IMSG)	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
Steff Lewis	Steering Group	Statistical Editor of the Stroke Group; member of the Statistical Methods Group	The Stroke Group are developing their own in-house tracking software
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
Mark Starr	Update Software (Director)		Involved in the development of commercial software e.g. Metaxis, and software for the Cochrane Collaboration as publisher of The Cochrane Library and derivative products
Phil Wiffen	Co-ordinating Editors	Co-ordinating Editor of the Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group

Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting (25 June 2002)

The minutes were approved and their status on the website can be changed.
Action: Monica

Matters arising

Attachment of a comment to a review when it is first published (Item 5.a)

Mike agreed to discuss this issue with the Handbook Advisory Group. He will try to find volunteers to draft new guidance and discuss the implications of changing the existing policy.
Action: Mike

Pre-publication comments by editorial teams (item 5.b)

Chris explained that this was part of a bigger issue about the future comments and criticisms system and web site.

Operations of the Criticism Management Advisory Group (CMAG) (Item 5.d)

Chris advised that the CMAG had met in Stavanger but that organising face-to-face meetings remains challenging. At present the group seems to be working well using e-mail for discussions.

RevMan 4.2 (Item 6)

The changes to the permission for publication form are dependent on the new publishing arrangement. The revision of the statistical section of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook is ongoing. Monica agreed to let Mike know the deadline for suggested changes to the documentation included with RevMan 4.2.
Action: Monica, Mike

Sonja explained that she was involved in drafting a new style guide for the Cochrane Collaboration and the North West of England copy editing pilot, which would begin in December 2002. It was agreed that Sonja should try to get the new Style Guide approved by the Quality Advisory Group and the Steering Group before the official start of the pilot. This was discussed further under item 5.
Action: Sonja

Plan for implementing recommendations of the Needs Assessment Survey - the next generation of the Information Management System (Item 9)

Monica apologised that she had not had time to collect feedback from the IMSG before submitting 'Proposal for development of the Information Management System - July 2002' to the Steering Group for consideration at their meeting in July 2002. She agreed to circulate the document for information to all members of the IMSG.
Action: Monica

Wiley's proposal for copy editing

Andrew gave a presentation detailing the 'Cochrane Core Database Production and Workflow' proposal as part of John Wiley and Sons' proposal to publish the Cochrane Collaboration's output. The proposal is for copy-editing to be done for new and substantively updated reviews, rather than legacy reviews (which will be updated at some point in the future). Reviews would be copy edited following a Cochrane Collaboration house style that should be developed jointly between Wiley and the Collaboration. Concerns were raised that some legacy reviews may never be copy-edited because they may never be substantively updated, and the process for dealing with these would need to be discussed. It was pointed out that there could be huge revisions to a review without it being termed a substantive update.

Sonja reported that Harriet MacLehose, Sonja and the other RGCs of the five CRGs in the North West of England had prepared a new Cochrane Collaboration Style Guide as part of their copy editing project, the pilot for which is scheduled to start in December 2002. Harriet was also developing a web site so that everybody can access not only the Style Guide (when approved) but also details of the different copy editing projects within the Collaboration as well as other matters relating to style. Sonja explained that the CRGs involved in the pilot would be using the Style Guide and that named people responsible for copy editing within these editorial bases would be trained by an experienced copy editor external to the CRGs. Sonja explained that the pilot involved both in-house (within the individual CRG) and external copy editing. Once a protocol/review/update is copy edited in-house, the review will be sent to the external copy editor along with a completed checklist. The time at which this will happen will vary depending on the individual CRG's editorial process. The external copy editor will be the same person who provides the training. The external copy editor will then check the copy edited protocol/review/update and return the checklist with her comments on the copy editing carried out. A random sample of reviews that have been through this process would be checked when published. The aim of this pilot is to evaluate if external training and support improves the quality of copy editing within CRGs.

Andrew suggested that the Style Guide prepared by the copy editing pilot project should form the basis of the Cochrane Collaboration house style. Once the Style Guide had been approved by the Quality Advisory Group and the Steering Group, it was agreed that this should be passed on to Andrew for his consideration. It was also agreed to discuss experiences of the copy edit pilot project with representatives of John Wiley and Sons to assess whether this can continue under the proposed new publishing arrangement.

Andrew clarified that reviews would not be 'rejected' if they required much copy editing, but that communication would take place with the CRG. The copy editor would be available for consultation with reviewers and CRGs.

There was general agreement that the copy editing should not affect the reviewers any more than at present and also the reviewer should feel that copy-editing is positive. Chris pointed out that it was important that the copy-editor did not change the meaning of the review. Andrew agreed and also confirmed that a reviewer's personal style would not be copy edited. Andrew also assured the IMSG that the style of copy editing would be agreed with the Cochrane Collaboration before it was undertaken. Mike pointed out that although CRGs would be asked to adopt the approved Cochrane Style Guide, there could be individual CRG style needs not covered by the generic Style Guide. These would have to be agreed with the individual CRGs. It was agreed that the copy editor should also refer to other Cochrane Collaboration documents to confirm that policies are followed, e.g. The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. It was also agreed that it is important to provide a clear understanding of what copy editing would involve. Mike also pointed out that it should be made explicit which sections of a review will be dealt with by the copy editor.
Action: Andrew

Monica agreed to collate further feedback from IMSG members and send it to Andrew by 25 November 2002, along with the current draft version of the new Style Guide. Mark pointed out that it is necessary to improve the quality of reviews prior to publication by, for example, also using validation checks and warnings in RevMan. Monica agreed to liaise with Andrew about this in relation to the release of RevMan 4.2.
Action: Monica

There was general agreement that the Cochrane Collaboration should work towards having a continuous publication cycle rather than quarterly deadlines. Mark pointed out that quarterly deadlines were Collaboration policy, and that there were no technical reasons for them. He suggested that continuous publishing would give different advantages and disadvantages. David pointed out that continuous publication might disadvantage CD users, as the CDs would be out of date immediately. Andrew agreed to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of quarterly versus continuous publication dates.
Action: Andrew

New IMS

Discussion of the proposed new Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System

The document 'Introduction to the new Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System' (hereafter called 'the proposal') had been discussed at the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) and RevMan Advisory Group (RAG) meetings on 14 November 2002, and some general issues had been raised and noted. Concerns were raised about developing in-house software versus using commercially available software. Monica advised that using commercial software as well as open source software is a possibility that will be explored, for instance, existing software modules might be used as building blocks in the new IMS. Georg Koch, from the German Cochrane Centre, had sent a proposal to the IMSG suggesting that consideration should be given to Lotus Notes. Monica advised that the IMS team at the Nordic Cochrane Center would investigate if modules from this system could be used for the new IMS. Monica will thank Georg for his suggestion.
Action: Monica

Kay suggested that information about software under development should be shared more widely within the Cochrane Collaboration, so that people developing software for other purposes, can feed in their experiences. For instance, not all entities are aware of the development of the new contact database. Monica mentioned that, at the moment, this was used by all registered Fields, Centres, Methods Groups and the Steering Group for editing their modules and core contact details, and some CRGs were using it for maintaining contact details. Monica agreed to send out a brief note about the status of the new Contact Database to CCInfo. Monica also agreed to send some general information to Daren Spithoff (the editor of Cochrane News) about discussion lists and where useful information and documentation about software projects can be found. A register of software initiatives, which would also include non-IMSG projects, was discussed and Monica agreed to allocate a page on the IMS web site to this.
Action: Monica

Discussion took place about the development of a study-based register. At the moment this is not a priority for the development of the new IMS, but the IMSG wish to work with the CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group to make sure that the new IMS can interface with such a system when it becomes available. Kay explained that CENTRAL has to be cleaned up before it becomes a study-based register. It was agreed that it would be desirable for reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to link back to a study-based register, but more consultation about this is needed. Mike advised that if there were a study-based register, this might also allow topic lists to link to relevant studies. He also clarified that MeerKat is not official Cochrane Collaboration software, but one of a wide variety of tools to build specialised registers. The structure for references in Meerkat is compatible with the structure for references in Cochrane reviews, and a study-based register developed by the Cochrane Collaboration would therefore also support the exchange of data between Meerkat and such a central register.

In summary, the concepts presented in the proposal were approved by the IMSG. The following specific issues were raised:

The new IMS will include an update of the review writing software, RevMan 5, and this will continue to be regarded as the official review writing software for the Cochrane Collaboration, for which technical support will be provided. However, because the data exchange format (likely to be XML) will be published, others may choose to develop their own review writing software that can interface with the central database. Andrew pointed out the dangers of inconsistency and variable quality of XML files originating from different systems, and Rasmus assured the IMSG that validation checks would be integrated into the central system and would not only be part of RevMan 5. This would ensure that files coming from other systems would only be accepted if they were in the correct format. This should be reflected in the proposal.
Action: Rasmus, Monica

Monica agreed to remove the reference to reviewers being able to work on different parts of a review simultaneously.
Action: Monica

Andrew pointed out that delivery of XML files to the publisher might not be as simple as suggested in the proposal. Monica agreed to amend the document to clarify that the XML files generated by the new IMS would need to be rendered by the publisher into a format suitable for publication on the various platforms.
Action: Monica

Chris suggested that more information should be included about the dangers and disadvantages of an internet-based system and on how these could be addressed. Users of other internet-based systems should be consulted with regard to identifying those systems' advantages and disadvantages. This information could provide input to the more detailed design of the new IMS. Monica agreed to add and maintain an appendix listing potential problems.
Action: Monica

Mike clarified that the Steering Group would focus on the concepts of the new IMS, whereas it would leave it to the IMSG to advise and agree on implementation issues. The proposal that will be submitted to the Steering Group will include details of who will make the final decisions about software and implementation, and the implications for the publishers of the Cochrane Collaboration's output. Monica reported that the Nordic Cochrane Centre has planned to support the development of the new IMS financially, and the Steering Group has allocated funds to employ a system developer, initially for a two-year period. The proposal will contain the estimated costs of development and maintenance (e.g. helpdesk, training facilities, etc.).
Action: Monica

Once the proposal has been amended according to the comments from this meeting, Monica will publish it on the IMS web site, announce its availability widely and encourage members of the Cochrane Collaboration to provide feedback. She also agreed to send some information to CCInfo and all entities as a follow up to the article about the results of the needs assessment survey which was recently published in Cochrane News.
Action: Monica

The project team

Monica explained who would be working on the IMS at the Nordic Cochrane Centre and the Norwegian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, and the communication flow of key groups involved in the development of the IMS.

Ensuring input from members of the Cochrane Collaboration

See item 6.a above.

Time line - short and long term

Monica advised that between November 2002 and February 2003, the IMS project team would be concentrating on the overall design of the new system and preparing a draft budget. Once members of the IMSG have commented, the proposal and budget will be revised and submitted to the Steering Group. She confirmed that the IMS Team would request advice from the Technical Implementation Advisory Group and other advisors. Rasmus agreed to invite the Stroke Group programmer and Susan Baumes from the New England Cochrane Center to join the TIAG. The rest of 2003 would be spent working on the design and on defining the database structure. General releases would take place in 2004 and 2005. Rasmus spoke briefly about the current ideas about the rollout of the new IMS. The IMS will be introduced in a stepwise fashion, where possible. When larger groups of modules must be introduced in one step, this will be done for a few pilot groups first before all users are involved.
Action: Monica, Rasmus, Everyone

Matters arising from the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) meeting

Membership document

Sonja reported that a membership document is being finalised.

Commercial tracking products

Monica had agreed to ask the Norwegian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre to finalise the document on commercially available products for tracking documents. Once seen by the MAG, this will be passed to the IMSG and published on the IMS web site.
Action: Monica

Use of ModMan 4.2 beta

The MAG had approved the use of ModMan 4.2 beta as an interim tracking solution. Discussion took place about validation checks within ModMan and Rasmus had agreed to include them in the 4.2 release before the end of December 2002.
Action: Rasmus

Linking Cochrane reviews to more than one CRG

The MAG supported the ability of linking Cochrane reviews to more than one CRG, and Rasmus agreed to add it to the Wish List because it cannot be implemented in ModMan 4.2.
Action: Rasmus

Reviewers e-mail discussion list

Rasmus had agreed to contact RGCs about invalid and missing e-mail addresses for contact reviewers after each module submission deadline.
Action: Rasmus

Sources of support document in The Cochrane Library

Rasmus had agreed to discuss the non-standard information within the 'Sources of support' document in The Cochrane Library with Jini Hetherington. He will investigate sending an automated quarterly e-mail to RGCs advising of non-standard information.
Action: Rasmus

RevMan and other matters arising from the RevMan Advisory Group (RAG)meeting

Guidance on types of additional figures

Mike clarified that because RevMan 4.2 will allow additional figures (graphs and pictures) to be stored within Cochrane reviews, it had been discussed whether guidance is needed about the kinds of pictures allowed in reviews. There had been general agreement that the editorial bases should control this. There is however a wider issue of certain pictures not being suitable for a general audience. Mike agreed to discuss this with John Wiley and Sons and advise the Handbook Advisory Group that guidance may need to be written. Mike also agreed to ask the Steering Group (at the next Executive teleconference) for their agreement that editorial bases should control what types of pictures to include in Cochrane reviews.
Action: Mike

Post hoc note: Guidance for which types of graphs to include have been prepared by Julian Higgins and will be included in the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook.

Method for identifying which versions of RevMan have been used for editing Cochrane reviews

Mike reported that, in RevMan 4.2, automatic text would be added within the unpublished notes field to note which version of RevMan had been used to prepare and edit the review.

Links to other Cochrane reviews from within a Cochrane review

The ability to link between Cochrane reviews from within the text of the review was not recommended by the RAG. Instead, a reference should be added for the review to be linked to and the publisher should activate the link (through the reference). Andrew confirmed that references can be tagged and he agreed to discuss this further with Update Software. Mark clarified that linking to other reviews can only be done in The Cochrane Library when accessed through the Internet (as the CD-ROM version would not contain the archive of previously published reviews).
Action: Andrew, Mark

The need for all co-reviewers to use the same version of RevMan

Mike reported that there had been agreement that all co-reviewers should switch to RevMan 4.2 at the same time.

Inclusion of 'studies' without references and the ability to disable repeat warnings about these

This issue had been raised in relation to 'dummy' studies that had been included in Cochrane reviews in order for people to do, for example, patient-level subgroup analyses. With the ability to include figures (in RevMan 4.2), it was agreed that reviewers should use these rather than creating dummy studies. It was agreed that warnings about the presence of empty references are useful and the request for a function to switch off these warnings was rejected.

Publication of co-reviewers' contact details

Mike reported that the RAG had recommended that the co-reviewers' name, organisation and country be included in Cochrane reviews. This information can currently be obtained from the Parent Database. He advised that before implementation, he would assess the quality of the information that currently exists within the Parent Database.
Action: Mike

Information Technology (IT) survey of developing countries

Progress report

Elizabeth asked that any comments on her proposed survey be sent to her as soon as possible. She would then circulate a revised survey to the IMSG. She explained that she would contact the Iberoamerican, Brazilian and Chinese Cochrane Centres because of their responsibility for developing countries. The survey will be available on the South African MRC's website and will be sent by e-mail. If neither form of communication is successful, she will contact people by mail by the end of December 2002. A copy of the results of the survey will be sent to all participants.
Action: Everyone, Elizabeth

Survey questionnaire

Elizabeth advised that the final analysis will be done by a statistician who will be employed by the South African Cochrane Centre, and the same analysis and plan will be followed as used for the main survey. The survey will be translated into Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese. She agreed to ask Rasmus if help was required in extracting e-mail addresses from the Parent Database. Preliminary results should be available by the end of February 2003 with finalised results available by the end of June 2003.
Action: Elizabeth

Funding

Monica advised that a budget of £400 had been set aside for a teleconference for people from developing countries but this had not been used. It was agreed that Elizabeth could use this for prepaid envelopes for the survey. Monica will remove this line item when submitting the next IMSG budget.
Action: Elizabeth, Monica

Cochrane Collaboration web site

Update

David gave the background to his project, which had commenced in February 2002, to develop a prototype website including new features, to be available as a beta version in the beginning of 2003, and released in October 2003.

At present, the prototype is broken down into sections for people with different interests - media, reviewers, clinicians, and consumers. A further goal is to translate the web pages into various languages.

It was agreed that David should explore setting up a competition to help design the visual aspects of the new website.

David advised that he would be setting up an editorial content advisory committee along with the existing e-mail discussion group. He would liaise with both the IMSG and PPG about this.
Action: David

Mike raised concerns about the difficulties of trying to collect feedback through the channels currently available. It was agreed that David should ask entities to devote time at staff meetings during the next three months (when the beta version has full functionality) to this, and feedback their comments to him. David agreed to prepare a budget proposal for web meetings with different entities.
Action: David

Monica agreed to ask Daren Spithoff for the editorial that had been published about the new web site. She would then add it to the IMSG web site.
Action: Monica

Dynamic templates for future entity websites: how would it affect the IMS?

David reported that Nancy Owens, during her visits to all Cochrane entities, had asked questions about internal online needs, processes, tools and services. David and Gerd Antes had been discussing the future of entity web sites to reduce the time spent by entities on designing these. The endpoint would be to offer a dynamic shell (template) to those entities that have an interest in maintaining a small core of information on their web site. The information relating to the Cochrane Collaboration in general would not have to be updated by the entity as it would be updated automatically by linking to the main web site. Parts of the web page would be accessible for entities to add their own information. If sufficient interest was shown, the project could begin at the end of 2003. Although there has been general agreement about standardising the appearance of websites and the way they show their relationship to the Cochrane Collaboration, concern was raised about the amount of work that this project would generate.

Report from Intranet usability workshop

David had recently attended an Intranet (internal web sites for organisations) usability workshop in London.

He reported that the suggested way to design a web site was to:

• Minimise clicks - people have short attention spans.
• Be task orientated.
• Put things in order.
• Think of the user's experience.
• Have a clear navigation system with clues.
• Be interactive and international.
• Have a "Killer application" on every page (i.e. contact database/tracking function or whatever the user will use most often).

David suggested some principles for the new IMS:

• To make the URL easy to remember.
• To have a unified login.
• To create an employee directory.
• To publish branch office directions/maps.
• To publish Technical FAQs.
• To have a feedback system with real acknowledgements.

Comments and criticisms

Other languages

Chris reported that some comments had now been submitted in languages other than English, and that a process for how these comments are dealt with should be finalised. A draft process has been added to the Criticism Management Advisory Group's handbook.

It was suggested that Criticism Editors or editorial bases find translators or that they contact the appropriate Cochrane Centre. Monica advised that within the new contact database, people could be tagged with the role 'translator'. Both the comment and response will be published in both the original language and English on the web site. Chris agreed to liaise with Mark about this.
Action: Chris

Minor criticisms

Chris reported that there is currently no way to separate the way in which major and minor comments are processed. He suggested that the web site should advise people wishing to comment on spelling mistakes or typographical errors to contact the appropriate CRG, and that minor comments may not be published on the web site.

It was agreed that the house rules should be explicit about what constitutes a minor or major comment, and also information explaining that requests for personal medical advice cannot be responded to. To have a citation for a comment requires a URL and, at present, there is no direct route to get directly to the comment that needs to be cited. Mark agreed to investigate the possibility of having a URL for each comment.
Action: Chris, Mark

Future plans

Future plans for comments and criticisms are on hold pending the new publishing arrangement.

Any other business

There were no other items of business at this meeting

Date of next meeting

Monica agreed to canvass for dates for a teleconference at the beginning of February 2003 and for a face-to-face meeting at the end of April or start of May 2003.
Action: Monica