IMSG 29 April 2003

Minutes approved: 12 September 2003

Present: Gerd Antes, Dave Booker, Mike Clarke, Andrew Cullis, Kay Dickersin, Sonja Henderson, Julian Higgins, Monica Kjeldstrøm (Convenor), Rasmus Moustgaard, and Elizabeth Pienaar.

In attendance: Claire Allen (minutes), Deborah Dixon (from 11.00), Colleen Finley, Brendan Gibson, and Nick Royle (until 13.00).

Apologies: Mark Starr.

Contents:
1. Welcome and apologies
2. Approval of agenda
3. Potential conflict of interest for members present at this meeting
4. Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting
5. Update on the development of the new IMS
6. Quarterly versus continuous publication dates
7. Status on developing countries survey
8. Cochrane Collaboration web site development - the next phase
9. Matters arising from the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) meeting
10. Proposed new remit of the ModMan Advisory Group
11. Matters arising from the RevMan Advisory Group
12. Responsibility for additional figures
13. Feedback from the Convenor of the TIAG
14 .Use of style in Cochrane reviews
15. Update on prospective copy edit pilot
16. Any other business
17. Date and venue of next meeting

Welcome and apologies

Monica welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly Andrew Cullis (who is now a full member of the IMSG as representative for The Cochrane Collaboration's publisher, John Wiley & Sons), Colleen Finley (Project manager responsible for putting The Cochrane Library on to Wiley InterScience), Brendan Gibson (Development Engineer from John Wiley & Sons), and Nick Royle (who had recently been appointed as Chief Executive Officer of The Cochrane Collaboration).

Monica acknowledged Mark Starr's valuable contributions to the IMSG over the last nine years and he was thanked in his absence. Mark's role as representative for the Collaboration's publisher has been taken over by Andrew (see above).

Approval of agenda

The agenda was approved with the following additions:

• Matters arising from the Cochrane/Wiley web site coordination meeting.
• CENTRAL.
• Digital Object Identifiers.
• Beta testing of The Cochrane Library on Wiley InterScience.

Potential conflict of interest for members present at this meeting

Monica agreed to add the following for Andrew to the conflict of interest table: Group represented: Publisher; Other group membership/roles: Wiley Production Technical Group, Chichester; Other potential conflicts of interest: Publisher. May have preference for systems, processes and formats that streamline the publisher's own publication infrastructure. No changes were needed for other members of the IMSG (apart from the slight updating of the entry for Kay - see item 4).
Action: Monica

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 David Booker, whose work may be affected by decisions taken by the IMSG.
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
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
Andrew Cullis	Publisher	Wiley Production Technical Group, Chichester	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
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
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
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
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

The table of potential conflict of interest should reflect that Kay is the Director of the US Cochrane Center. Pending this change, the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2003 were approved.

Matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2003

Commercial tracking products (item 4b)

Monica advised that the report detailing the evaluation of commercial tracking products is now available on the IMS web site (http://www.cc-ims.net/ModMan/). Monica clarified that the systems described in the report had been evaluated against a set of specifications agreed by the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) in relation to tracking reviews through the editorial process, rather than the full specifications for a future replacement of the entire IMS.

Reviewers e-mail discussion list (item 4c)

Rasmus explained that this issue had been discussed by MAG and their recommendation was that a validation check e-mail message should be sent to the list by Mark Davies (reviewers' representative on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group) every three months. It was agreed that the message should indicate clearly that no action was required on the part of the recipient. If Mark agreed, a pilot e-mail could be sent in July 2003. Sonja reported that RGCs need to know the extent of the problem of invalid e-mail addresses, and explained that it was important that reviewers know the e-mail is being sent to improve the quality of information contained in reviews. Mike noted the problems that there had been with messages to the list a few months earlier and Sonja agreed to contact Mark Davies to ask how often he is intending to send e-mails to the list, to see if messages could coincide with the validation e-mail messages, which would be sent when the Nordic Cochrane Centre receives a copy of the Parent Database (approximately one month after the module submission deadline).
Action: Sonja

Links to other Cochrane reviews from within a Cochrane review (item 8e)

Andrew reported that the issue of linking between a review and its earlier versions is pending the outcome of the DOI (document object identifier) discussion that is currently taking place in the Publishing Policy Group. See also item 16c.

Publication of co-reviewers contact details (item 4f)

Mike reported that the RevMan Advisory Group (RAG) had recommended that co-reviewer's contact details should be as up-to-date as possible in the published version.

Representative for Co-ordinating Editors (item 5a)

Monica agreed to canvass the Co-ordinating Editors asking for volunteers to join the IMSG. Sonja agreed to send Monica the text of the e-mail she had used to canvass for a Co-ordinating Editor to join the MAG.
Action: Monica, Sonja

Convenor of the Criticism Management Advisory Group (item 5b

Mike reported that the Steering Group had not yet identified a new convenor.

Update on the new IMS web site (item 12)

Monica reported that the new IMS web site (www.cc-ims.net) is available, and agreed to send an announcement to all entities.
Action: Monica

Update on plans for CENTRAL (item 14a)

Kay reported that she had canvassed CRGs to find out how easy it would be for them to standardise the journal names in their specialised register. She reported that positive responses had been received to date, but agreed to send a reminder to CRGs stating a deadline for responses.
Action: Kay

Update on the development of the new IMS

Monica reported that the Steering Group (CCSG) had discussed the budget for the development of the new IMS at their recent meeting in Melbourne (March 2003). The CCSG had approved the proposed budget in principle. This would allow the IMS team at the Nordic Cochrane Centre to develop the IMS according to the concepts discussed at previous IMSG meetings, and detailed in the introduction document on the web site. Mike said that the CCSG had acknowledged that the Nordic Cochrane Centre made a huge contribution to the development of the IMS by contributing approximately 3 full time positions.

The IMS team will continue to liaise closely with the IMSG and its advisory groups during the development, as they had during the development of other software such as RevMan. Monica reported that detailed discussions about review formats and implications for reviewers will take place with the RAG at a meeting in September 2003, and the structure and format of reviews and of other Cochrane Collaboration output for publication will need to be discussed and agreed with Wiley. Sonja reported that the MAG had recommended that a joint meeting of Co-ordinating Editors and RGCs should be organised at the XI Cochrane Colloquium in Barcelona in October 2003 to allow an in depth consultation without representatives of the Nordic Cochrane Centre being present. It was suggested that Nick should lead the meeting. It was also suggested that a clear statement should come from the CCSG to clarify various issues about the new IMS, e.g. whether its use will be mandatory for all entities. Nick agreed to add this item to the agenda for the next teleconference of the Executive Group of the CCSG. Sonja reported that the MAG had recommended that a message come from the CCSG, which made clear why the Nordic Cochrane Centre is developing the software. Nick agreed also to add this item to the agenda for the next Executive teleconference.
Action: Monica, Andrew, Nick

Monica agreed to give training and communication mechanisms for entities high priority. She had arranged to speak to Phil Alderson, who has developed distance-learning material for reviewers, to get ideas and input on training needs. Mike raised the issue of whether discussions could take place at regional meetings. It was agreed that this needed to be part of the communication strategy over the next twelve months. Monica reported that a presentation and discussion of the new IMS had taken place at the 9th Annual Meeting for UK Contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration in Warwick, UK, on 17 March 2003, and that the IMS team would be presenting the new IMS at the annual meeting of continental European Cochrane entities in Rome, Italy, on 22-23 May 2003. A similar presentation may be given at the 3rd Canadian Cochrane Symposium in November 2003.
Action: Monica

Quarterly versus continuous publication dates

Andrew went through the discussion paper that he had circulated before the meeting, outlining the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the frequency of publication of Cochrane reviews.

It was agreed that moving to a monthly production cycle for the CD-ROM version would not be advantageous, so the discussion focused on the possibility of having a monthly online production and retaining a quarterly production for the CD-ROM version. A disadvantage of this would be that the CD-ROM would become different to the online version. The problem that the citations for a review might be different between the online and CD-ROM versions was also raised. Rasmus suggested that users of the CD-ROM version might be allowed access to the online version to check whether there were any new or updated reviews each month.

Kay raised the issue that CENTRAL, in its complete form, was submitted to the publisher every three months, and that it was important to consider the production cycle for CENTRAL along with the production cycle for Cochrane reviews when thinking about the publication frequency of The Cochrane Library.

Nick noted that it is important that Wiley assess the needs of end users of The Cochrane Library, and Elizabeth suggested that it was important that any changes to the publication schedule did not lead to an increase in the price. It was acknowledged that whichever production cycle was used, the new IMS should be flexible enough to support it. It was also suggested that if there is to be a change to the production cycle, this should be introduced at the same time as the introduction of the new IMS.

The IMSG members agreed to send further feedback by e-mail to Andrew, who will collate comments, revise the discussion document and recirculate. Monica pointed out that decisions on changes to the publication cycle were not the responsibility of the IMSG but that the IMSG needs to ensure that the IMS is geared towards the publication cycle. Mike agreed to raise the issue with the PPG when Andrew's paper is revised. Kay agreed to discuss the publication frequency of CENTRAL with the CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group as well as Wiley.
Action: Everyone, Mike, Kay

Status on developing countries survey

Elizabeth reported preliminary findings from the developing countries survey, which had been e-mailed to 335 people in developing countries. The incentive for participants to complete the survey was that they were to be entered into a draw for a one-year subscription to The Cochrane Library. Twenty percent of the 335 people returned the survey. Twenty-six countries and 22 languages were represented. 93% of the participants were happy to return the survey in English, and most participants came from a country in which there was a Cochrane Centre. Elizabeth agreed to contact those people who did not respond, to ask them why.

The survey showed that many of the respondents do not regard RevMan as user friendly. In particular, they would like it to be available in different languages, and to have functionality like Microsoft Word. The most popular operating systems used were Windows 95 or Windows 98. Forty participants used Microsoft Word to prepare reviews. Fifty participants used English to write their review; two used their native language and translated the review when it was complete.

Elizabeth agreed to disseminate the results of the survey by July 2003, and upload the results to the IMS web site. Elizabeth agreed to make it clear how this survey links to the Collaboration-wide Software Needs Assessment Survey - reports of which are available at the IMS web site. Elizabeth and Valeria Marinho had also submitted an abstract for the Barcelona Colloquium.
Action: Elizabeth

Cochrane Collaboration web site development - the next phase

Monica declared a conflict of interest in this issue because of her involvement in the development of the new IMS and, so, Mike chaired the discussion.

Matters arising from Cochrane/Wiley web site meeting

Dave explained that the meeting had been convened on 28 April 2003 to discuss a variety of topics relating to web site development, starting with an assessment of a new logo for The Cochrane Library. Discussions took place about how co-ordination could take place between the Wiley and The Cochrane Collaboration web sites, and how contents could be shared. Common areas identified included 'About The Cochrane Collaboration (including entity modules)', 'Information for authors', 'Review writing materials', 'Training materials', 'Synopses', and 'Abstract'.

Web site development

After a brief presentation, Dave explained that the web site development is on schedule and final usability testing of the beta web site is taking place. He reported that he will make changes as a result of the feedback he has received to date. The web site will be available to the public in October 2003.

He reported that Nick Royle is setting up a sub-group of the PPG, for the purpose of making recommendations to the Steering Group about the Collaboration's overall web presence.

Dave proposed that careful consideration should be given to integrating the new IMS and The Cochrane Collaboration's main web site, so that there is only one point of entry on the Internet for people contributing actively to the development of Cochrane reviews. One of the purposes would be to avoid confusing users about which web site they are viewing. Monica pointed out that making closer links with The Cochrane Collaboration's web site could slow down the development of the new IMS, both because of technical issues (e.g. should search engine and access control be the same?) and because of graphical user interface design (should this be the same for both the IMS and the main web site?). It was agreed that any integration approaches should not slow down the development of the new IMS.

Rasmus pointed out that the new IMS was primarily for RGCs and entity co-ordinators, so it is unlikely that there will be confusion about which web site they are viewing. The new IMS should be regarded as a set of tools rather than a source of information, as is the more traditional use of a web site.

It was agreed that having the same interface was not a priority, but there is a need to identify what is urgent to coordinate now and what can be developed over time. Dave agreed to draft a document detailing the items that may overlap between The Cochrane Collaboration's web site and the new IMS, and discuss this with Monica. When Dave and Monica have discussed the document, it will be considered by the full IMSG, preferably no later than May to avoid delaying the development of the new IMS.
Action: Dave, Monica

Matters arising from the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) meeting

Sonja reported that the following items had been discussed at the MAG meeting:

New Co-ordinating Editor representative

Clive Adams had replaced Phil Wiffen, as the Co-ordinating Editor representative.

Publisher representative

Lois Sims had resigned from the MAG as representative for the Collaboration publisher. Andrew agreed to identify someone from Wiley, who would become a full member of the MAG.
Action: Andrew

Additional images

Sonja reported that MAG had recommended that the guidelines be updated to state that there should be no additional images or tables in abstracts. Mike agreed to bring this to the Handbook Advisory Group so that it could be included in a revision of the Handbook. As a pilot, Rasmus had agreed to provide advice on additional images to editorial bases. It was agreed that his advice should be shared with Simon Newton and Andrew at Wiley to ensure that it was consistent with Wiley's requirements. CRGs should be encouraged to check images for quality, and Rasmus agreed to provide CRGs with more specific guidelines detailing what is readable when published, including information about how images will appear in The Cochrane Library. Deborah agreed to liaise with Gordon Dooley at Update Software to establish how they handle additional images.
Action: Mike, Rasmus, Deborah

Guidance on who to send requests for reprints and for archived versions of reviews

Deborah explained that in the transition period, no archive of The Cochrane Library will be available directly from Wiley. In the short term, however, requests should be sent to her and she will then provide access to the review(s) in question via Update Software's archive. Mike agreed to send a document to all entities explaining who to contact at Wiley regarding the various types of requests.
Action: Mike

pdfFactory for all editorial offices

Sonja explained that pdfFactory would allow CRGs to create a pdf version of a complete review (including graphs), and also of the permission for publication form. Many reviewers are still using RevMan 4.1, so they could potentially be printing and signing off the incorrect permission for publication form. With pdfFactory, CRGs could send the correct permission for publication form electronically to reviewers. Rasmus advised that the cost would be $36 per copy if a minimum of 50 licences were purchased. The IMSG supported the proposal that CRGs should be offered a license of the software, and Monica agreed to try to identify funding for this.
Action: Monica

Policy on withdrawn reviews in The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook

Sonja reported that the MAG had recommended that it would be more appropriate to include this policy in the Cochrane Manual rather than the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. Mike agreed to change the documents to ensure that the details are explained in The Cochrane Manual, and the process explained in The Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. Sonja agreed to draft a replacement paragraph for Mike for the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook as well as draft a paragraph for the Cochrane manual.
Action: Mike, Sonja

Sonja reported that if a review had been deleted from a module, the title still exists in The Cochrane Library but when trying to access the document, the statement "this document cannot be found" appears. Andrew and Sonja agreed to discuss this issue.
Action: Andrew, Sonja

Specifications for a tracking system

Rasmus explained that the new IMS needs input on best practice in the editorial process on the basis of the report of the Quality Improvement Manager. Mike reported that the Quality Advisory Group now has responsibility for processing the Quality Improvement Manager's recommendations. Sonja agreed to contact Sally Green (copying Monica into any correspondence), highlighting the urgency of a document describing best practice in the editorial process.
Action: Sonja

Proposed new remit of the ModMan Advisory Group

Sonja reported that the document had been circulated to members of MAG and IMSG. Sonja agreed to make the following changes:

• Minutes of meetings will be prepared by "a member" of The Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat.
• A clearer explanation will be added about the appointment of new members including a statement to say that the Convenor will ask for volunteers from the Group representing the vacancy.
• All members of groups will be selected (according to the pre-specified criteria) rather than elected.
• The word 'co-opted' will be removed, and replaced with 'ad hoc'.
• Information will be provided on the Convenor's term of office when the IMSG discusses and revises its remit.
• It was agreed that when a new Convenor was required, the existing Convenor should ask each candidate to write a brief summary about themselves so that the IMSG could select one (This requirement will be incorporated into a revision of the remit of the IMSG).
• The Convenor would be responsible for stating when members' terms of office ended.

Pending these changes, the revised MAG remit could be posted on the IMS web site. Mike said that the RAG would use it as a template for a revision of their remit. Thanks were expressed to Reive Robb and Sonja for their work on the document. It was agreed to revisit the name of the MAG once the new IMS is in place.
Action: Sonja, Monica, Mike

Matters arising from the RevMan Advisory Group

Style in reviews prepared in RevMan 4.2

The Style Guide working group had prepared guidance on how to use new features available in RevMan 4.2, including bold, underline and italic. The RAG supported most of the guidance, but it had been agreed that Wiley should be asked for advice on how to use sub-headings within the text of Cochrane reviews. Andrew agreed to follow-up on this from Wiley's point of view and Sonja would feed the discussion back to the Style Guide working group.
Action: Sonja, Andrew

RevMan on CD-ROM

The RAG had discussed if it was necessary to produce RevMan 4.2 on CD-ROM. It had been agreed that a centrally produced CD-ROM version was not that useful if it was not up-to-date (e.g. if the reviewer needed to install a patch after installing the version from the CD-ROM). Therefore, RAG recommended that the Collaboration should not produce a large batch of RevMan on CD-ROMs, but that individual CRGs could produce a CD-ROM version of RevMan for any of their reviewers who were not able to download the software directly from the Internet. This recommendation was supported in principle by the IMSG, but Monica agreed to send a message to the CRGs to canvass their views before the final decision would be made.
Action: Monica

Publisher representative on the RAG

Andrew and Deborah agreed to identify someone to be the publisher representative on the RAG.
Action: Andrew, Deborah

Search strategies in reviews

Mike reported that the RAG had recommended that reviewers should write their detailed search strategies in the additional tables section in RevMan. Heather Maxwell had agreed to consult with TSCs and RGCs, Kay agreed to consult with the CENTRAL/ CCTR Advisory Group, and Mike agreed to send a message to the Cochrane Library Users Groups. When the comments had been collated, Mike would discuss these with the Handbook Advisory Group.
Action: Kay, Mike

RevMan 5

RAG had agreed to meet in September 2003 to discuss the format of a Cochrane review and RevMan 5 in detail. Monica agreed to organise an IMSG meeting for shortly after the RAG meeting to discuss the RAG's recommendations and other structural requirements for the new IMS.
Action: Mike, Monica

Reviews on institutional web sites

Mike had asked Deborah if it was possible for Wiley to provide versions of reviews that would be suitable for posting on a reviewer's own web site or his/her institution's web sites. Deborah reported that once The Cochrane Library is available on Wiley InterScience, she would investigate this.
Action: Deborah

Responsibility for additional figures

This item had already been discussed under item 9(b) above (Matters arising from the ModMan Advisory Group meeting).

Feedback from the Convenor of the TIAG

Rasmus reported that since the last meeting of the IMSG, members of the TIAG had assessed technology platforms for implementing the new IMS. Four alternative technologies had been considered: Microsoft Sharepoint Server and .Net; Java 2 Enterprise Edition framework; Lotus Domino; and Quickstream. The former two platforms would require a lot of programming, but the Lotus and Quickstream solutions would come with a set of 'tools out of the box' and require less programming. At the moment, the Quickstream solution was favoured, but further investigations were needed over the next month.

Use of style in Cochrane reviews

This item had already been discussed under item 11(a) above (Matters arising from the RevMan Advisory Group meeting).

Update on prospective copy edit pilot

Sonja reported that the first phase of the prospective copy edit pilot had been undertaken by five CRGs in the north west of England and an external copy editor. The pilot covers two module submissions (February and May 2003). Andrew agreed to nominate a copy editor from Wiley for the May issue (Brian Southwood) as the original copy editor was unable to continue due to work commitments. The copy-editing checklist used for the project is available at the style resource web site (http://www.liv.ac.uk/lstm/ehcap/CSR/home.html), and entities are encouraged to use this resource.
Action: Andrew

Any other business

Matters arising from the web Cochrane/Wiley web site coordination meeting

This was discussed under item 8 - Cochrane Collaboration web site development.

CENTRAL

Kay declared a potential conflict of interest in that she is closely involved in the development of CENTRAL and considers it to be an 'unpolished jewel'.

Kay reported that CENTRAL currently contains records for more than 350,000 reports. The US Cochrane Center receives specialised registers from CRGs and some other entities, and maintains a single file of handsearch results, which means that there are 51 files sent from the US Center to Update Software every three months. These data are combined with MEDLINE and EMBASE records downloaded by Update Software. Each time CENTRAL is rebuilt, various repetitive problems are identified, such as duplicate records (which arise mainly from the use of square brackets in titles).

The US Center would like to standardise journal names, and have asked TSCs and RGCs how much work it would be to standardise journal names in their registers. She also agreed to discuss with the CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group how CRGs might standardise the ways in which they maintain their specialised register. Rasmus suggested that if MeerKat was used, there could be a global search and replace for each journal name that was entered incorrectly. Mike reported that experience to date was that moving specialised registers into MeerKat took one to two days and Monica agreed to ask Sally Hopewell (Convenor of the MeerKat Working Group), how much support was needed thereafter. She also agreed to ask Clive Adams why some groups had decided not to use MeerKat after assessing it.
Action: Kay, Monica

Kay suggested that it would be good if, at the next IMSG meeting, more time was set aside for the discussion of specialised registers and CENTRAL and how they could be better integrated with the new IMS.
Action: Monica

Digital object identifiers

Wiley are planning on assigning a digital object identifier (DOI) to each Cochrane review, to enable linking to and from individual reviews and other published work. The same DOI will remain with a review throughout its life, but an extension will be used for substantive updates of reviews. Andrew reported that the DOIs would be automatically assigned during the process where reviews enter the publisher's system. Andrew did not think that the DOI should be part of the review structure in the new IMS, but suggested that a tag for references of the type 'Cochrane review' could be added for storing the DOIs. Rasmus agreed to add this to the wishlist. Any comments/concerns about the assignment of DOI should be sent to Colleen (cfinley@wiley.com).
Action: Rasmus, Everyone

It was agreed to discuss the issue of splitting and merging reviews in a future IMSG meeting.
Action: Monica

Beta testing of the Cochrane Library on Wiley InterScience

Colleen reported that The Cochrane Library on Wiley InterScience would be available within approximately a month for volunteer testers. She explained that by July there would be a web site open to the public for feedback. Rasmus and Elizabeth offered to help test the beta site. This will include systematic reviews, methodology reviews and entity modules, but CENTRAL will not be included. At the July launch the web site will be clearly labelled as a test site.
Action: Rasmus, Elizabeth

Date and venue of next meeting

Mike reported that the RAG will meet during the first two weeks in September 2003, to discuss the new review structure. Monica explained that she would set the date of the next IMSG meeting, when the date for the RAG meeting has been finalised.
Action: Monica