Towards improving the copy -editing experience

1. Towards improving the copy-editing experience Elizabeth Royle, Harriet MacLehose and John Hilton

2. 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

3. Outline of workshop • New accreditation test • Training and monitoring • Checklists • Style Guide • Resources required in future • Common errors • Methods of communication • Useful feedback

4. New accreditation test

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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) • Linked  from the Cochrane Style Resources website www.cochrane.org/training/authors-mes/cochrane-style-resource)

10. 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)

11. 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).

12. 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?

15. 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

18. 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

19. 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’ ”

20. 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 . . .

21. 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

22. 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).  • However, newer grading systems, such as the Name 1system (Schaper 2004) and the Name 2 system (Oyibo 2001) have been developed.

23. 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).  • However, newer grading systems, such as the Name 21system (Schaper 2004) and the Name 12system (Oyibo 2001) have been developed (Oyibo 2001; Schaper 2004).

24. Incorrect: Chapter of Handbook X

25. Correct: Chapter of Handbook ✔

26. 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

27. 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

28. Identification of the culprits Two ligatures not recognised by RevMan fi fl

29. Real life: problems • “ Use of ITT stated, however, participants were excluded from the analysis if they discontinued the intervention or were nurses on a foam mattress.” • “ Primary outcomes include underlying changes in the morality rate.” • “the cost of a foot ulcer in a person with DM was estimated as US $40 billion each year”

30. Real life: answers • “ Use of ITT stated, however, that participants were excluded from the analysis if they discontinued the intervention or were nurseds on a foam mattress.” • “ Primary outcomes include underlying changes in the mortality rate.” • “the cost of a foot ulcer in a person with DM was estimated as USD$40 billion* each year” *query cost with ME

31. Real life: continued • “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.”

32. 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

33. 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