Presentation on theme: "+ Towards improving the copy-editing experience Elizabeth Royle, Harriet MacLehose and John Hilton."— Presentation transcript:
+ Towards improving the copy-editing experience Elizabeth Royle, Harriet MacLehose and John Hilton
+ Conflict of interest statements Elizabeth Royle |Harriet MacLehose | John Hilton Employees of Wiley or Cochrane No actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this presentation
+ Outline of workshop New accreditation test Training and monitoring Checklists Style Guide Resources required in future Common errors Methods of communication Useful feedback
+ New accreditation test Draft test Sept-Dec 2013 CES team to sit Set pass mark appropriately Live test Jan 2014 onwards Contact interested parties (+ MEs) Candidates + Provisional CEs to sit 2 nd test Apr 2014 onwards Planned, not started New candidates + close fails
+ Form of test Part of a review Email to candidates with instructions Word document – use Track Changes State time taken to complete Return to CES Can be completed at any time Can be completed in any place
+ Training for CEs & potential CEs General distance learning: Style Guide, checklists, Handbook MECIR, PLEACS Tailored distance learning: Emails Webinars (if demand exists) Face to face training: Individual CEs RevMan 6, and PLEACS/MECIR equivalents
+ Monitoring quality Will cover all accredited CEs (CES + CRGs) Informally: ER via Archie ‘Compare’ function Routinely, or in response to ME comments Universal, qualitative assessment of work Direct feedback to CE +/- ME concerned
+ Monitoring quality Formally, via audit: In conjunction with CEU Checking particular points across range of assignments, for example: Consistent use of –ize or –ise, ‘eg’ or ‘e.g.’, etc Abbreviations stated in full initially Correct use of RevMan headings Active versus passive voice Reference IDs in form Name Year
+ Copy-editing checklists Developed by ERC, CEU, Copy Edit Support Two checklists: Is my review ready to go to copy-editing? (pre-copy-editing checklist) What to check when copy-editing (copy-editing checklist) Based from Handbook, MECIR, Cochrane Style Guide, other sources ERC website www.cochrane.org/intranet/editorial-resources- committee; Archie login required)www.cochrane.org/intranet/editorial-resources- committee; Archie login required) Linked from the Cochrane Style Resources website www.cochrane.org/training/authors-mes/cochrane-style-resource) www.cochrane.org/training/authors-mes/cochrane-style-resource)
+ Pre-copy-editing checklist: for editorial teams Why? Developed to establish consistent standard for articles being sent for copy-editing Highlight items that copy-editor cannot remedy Reduce unnecessary communication between CRGs and copy- editors Who should use it? Editor who prepares the Cochrane Review for copy-editing When in editorial process should it be used? Before sent for copy-editing (but could be used throughout editorial process)
+ Copy-editing checklist: for copy-editors Outlines the items that copy-editors should check when they are copy-editing a protocol, review, or update Developed to establish a consistent standard of copy-editing and to highlight the items that copy-editors should address. Complementary to the pre-copy-editing checklist (above).
+ What’s next? Have a look through the checklists. Would they be helpful in your role, such as an editor getting ready to send something to copy-editing, copy-editor, as someone receiving feedback from a copy-editor. Why would they be helpful? How or should we integrate in the copy-editing process? Trial period with mandatory use by all to inform policy?
+ Cochrane Style Guide Resource designed to help people responsible for copy editing to copy edit reviews and other Cochrane Collaboration documents in a consistent manner It contains guidance on everything from the correct use of abbreviations and heading styles to presenting statistical and mathematical data Cochrane Style Guide Basics: two-page summary About to be updated with over 100 items of feedback New layout, new format Online detail, PDF low-tech
+ Resources for CEs Cochrane Style GuideCopy-editing checklists CE-relevant DTA guidance – required CE-relevant guidance for other review types? Particular areas where more information required, e.g. Characteristics of included studies table? CEs’ forum email list
+ Common errors Objectives: differences between text in Abstract and in Main text Copy-editors’ checklist states: “Abstract – objectives: exact wording as the objectives in the ‘main text’ ”
+ Common errors Inconsistent use of abbreviations: Abbreviation stated, then term not used again in whole review Abbreviation stated, sometimes used, but other times restated in full Abbreviations to be restated for Conclusions Insufficient explanation of technical terms: hypoxaemia (low blood oxygen levels) intracranial (within the skull) endotoxic (septic) shock frequent etiologies (causes) include...
+ Common errors Presentation of currencies + numbers: US$ 100 X USD 100 ✔ £1,000 X GBP 1000 ✔ €10000 X EUR 10,000 ✔ Currency lists of 3-letter country codes available from ER Authors’ manual insertion of bullets/ numbers in lists: Particular problem in tables Should use RevMan buttons to do these
+ Common errors Use of ‘which’ and ‘that’ ‘which’ is best used after a comma: “the placebo, that was cunningly disguised, was harmless” “the placebo, which was cunningly disguised, was harmless” ‘that’ works better in the middle of sentences: “other endpoints relate to outcomes which were not specified as 'primary' or 'secondary'. ” “other endpoints relate to outcomes that were not specified as 'primary' or 'secondary‘. “ but ‘to which’ can go in the middle of a sentence “... resources to which they did not have access.”
+ Placing of citations in text Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was first discovered in 1961 (Barber 1961; Jevons 1961; Knox 1961) and outbreaks have been reported since the 1970s (Klimek 1976;O'Toole 1970). Barber 1961Jevons 1961Knox 1961Klimek 1976O'Toole 1970 However, newer grading systems, such as the Name 1 system (Schaper 2004) and the Name 2 system (Oyibo 2001) have been developed.Schaper 2004Oyibo 2001
+ Placing of citations in text Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was first discovered in 1961 (Barber 1961; Jevons 1961; Knox 1961), and outbreaks have been reported since the 1970s (Klimek 1976; O'Toole 1970). Barber 1961Jevons 1961Knox 1961Klimek 1976O'Toole 1970 However, newer grading systems, such as the Name 21 system (Schaper 2004) and the Name 12 system (Oyibo 2001) have been developed (Oyibo 2001; Schaper 2004).
+ Tolerated blemish Assessment of risk of bias Jadad now obsolete New ‘Risk of bias’ tool Updated reviews frequently employ both methods No official position on this, but please encourage use of ‘Risk of bias’ tool for all included trials
+ Quirk in RevMan spell-check Spelled correctly with same word suggested: Fortified, specific, refined, defined, classified, modified, sufficient, justification, influenced, confidence, clarification Spelled correctly with other words suggested: five: vae, vel, vue, vet, vex, vie flour: ow, owe, owl, own, owed, owes figures: gurneys, glues, guars, guess, guest, gurus findings: nodding, nudging, fin, Nadi, nedi, Nadine
+ Identification of the culprits Two ligatures not recognised by RevMan ﬁ ﬂ
+ Real life: problems 1. “ Use of ITT stated, however, participants were excluded from the analysis if they discontinued the intervention or were nurses on a foam mattress.” 2. “ Primary outcomes include underlying changes in the morality rate.” 3. “the cost of a foot ulcer in a person with DM was estimated as US $40 billion each year”
+ Real life: answers 1. “ Use of ITT stated, however, that participants were excluded from the analysis if they discontinued the intervention or were nurseds on a foam mattress.” 2. “ Primary outcomes include underlying changes in the mortality rate.” 3. “the cost of a foot ulcer in a person with DM was estimated as USD $40 billion* each year” *query cost with ME
+ Real life: continued 4. “The authors... could not supply the information whether some of the prostheses could not be placed after implant failures without placing additional implants for replacing the failed ones, therefore this trial was assessed at high risk of bias for this domain.”
+ Communication: CRGs to ER Personal email to ER required for submissions Archie tasks do not allow for CEU screening State review title in ‘Subject’ line, please Put variables at top of Archie-generated messages Tickets work better than Archie tasks Not compulsory Phone or Skype if discussion required Phone number in ER’s email signature
+ Communication: ER to CRGs Does it work for you? CES processes Stylistic preferences Does CEU screening have implications? Feedback (to CES and from CES) Response to complaints