The cochrane library oversight committee

Richard Smith The main output of The Cochrane Collaboration's more than 20,000 global participants is The Cochrane Library. The library is growing in both size and quality, and the appointment of David Tovey as Editor in Chief in 2008 was an important step in ensuring its continued development. At the same time that David was appointed, the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group (CCSG) decided that there should also be an oversight committee for The Cochrane Library. As the remit of the Committee says, "The primary purpose of the Oversight Committee is to support the Editor in Chief's editorial independence by providing a mechanism for avoiding or resolving disputes about the content of The Cochrane Library or any editorial positions taken by the Editor in Chief in respect to the Library that may arise between the Editor in Chief and the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, other Cochrane entities or individuals or the publisher for The Cochrane Library."[1] The Oversight Committee is now in place. Why does The Cochrane Library need an oversight committee? The concept of an oversight committee arose after George Lundberg was spectacularly fired in 1999 as the Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).[2, 3, 4] There have been many examples of editors falling out with the owners of the journals they edit,[5] and some tension between editors and owners may be not only inevitable but also desirable. Editors and their teams must have considerable independence in order for their journals to be taken seriously, and inevitably independent editors will sometimes take decisions that will offend owners, readers, authors, publishers, or the many other stakeholders of journals. Most of these disagreements can be settled amicably, but sometimes they can lead to major problems, including the firing of the editor and serious damage being done to the journal. One of the functions of an oversight committee is to serve as a buffer between the editor and the offended party and to resolve serious disputes. In the aftermath of the firing of Lundberg, Huw Davies, a Management Academic, and Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of JAMA, reflected on what is needed for a trusting and productive relationship between owners and editors. Firstly, they suggest, there is a need to recognise mutual accountability. Secondly, there should be "a clearly defined and shared vision for the enterprise."[3] For most journals this is probably missing, but it certainly exists for The Cochrane Collaboration and The Cochrane Library. Thirdly, editors should be responsible for delivering measurable objectives – perhaps an increase in the impact factor of the journal or the time to process manuscripts – from a defined and agreed strategy. Fourthly, the editors should be free to decide the tactics to deliver the strategy; regular interference with short‐term objectives is ruinous for a journal. Fifthly, there should be a regular flow of information for communication rather than for judgement, which should help build trust. And finally, owners and editors should always try to resolve disputes informally, but there needs to be a back‐up formal system. The Oversight Committee is that system. The functions of the JAMA Oversight Committee were defined in 1999 as "a system to evaluate the Editor‐in Chief … [and] to foster objective consideration of the inevitable issues that arise between a journal and its parent body".[4] The Committee has been in existence ever since. The Oversight Committee has been useful in resolving many editorial disputes, including in 2009 when it was asked by the American Medical Association to examine "concerns raised over how Journal of the American Medical Association senior editors responded to a report that a study author had failed to comply with the journal's editorial policies regarding conflicts of interest".[6] This was a dramatic story, including the editor of the journal allegedly telling an author that he was "a nobody and a nothing".[7] The Oversight Committee recommended that the journal change its procedures, and it did.[6] The Committee clearly served a useful function and resolved a problem that could otherwise have escalated. The Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) also introduced an oversight committee, but unfortunately it didn't stop John Hoey, the editor, and several of his team, being fired in as dramatic a manner as the removal of George Lundberg.[8, 9] The journal still has an oversight committee. The CCSG set about creating an oversight committee by drafting a document on the remit, responsibilities, and membership of the Committee, placing it on the website, and inviting comments.[1] It also asked Richard Smith, former Editor of the BMJ and Chief Executive of the BMJ Publishing Group and a long time supporter of the Collaboration, to be the First Chair. Applications were then invited to be members of the Committee, and over 20 people applied. Richard Smith, David Tovey, and Lorne Becker, who was then a Co‐Chair of the CCSG, selected seven members, ensuring that the membership included people with considerable experience of medical publishing and dispute resolution, was well balanced by geography, discipline, and gender, and included several people who were not members of the Collaboration. Their selection was then approved by the CCSG, and Magne Nylenna, a former Editor of the Norwegian Medical Journal and Head of the National Electronic Library of Health in Norway, was selected as the Deputy Chair. All the members of the Committee are signatories of this editorial. The Committee has held its first meeting and thinks of itself as a 'work in progress'. The minutes of the meeting are available on the Cochrane Editorial Unit's website.[10] Minutes of the meetings will routinely be placed on the website, although they may be edited to avoid injury to anybody. Besides settling disputes, the Committee will also support the Editor in Chief and report on the performance of him and The Cochrane Library. There is clearly a tension between supporting the Editor in Chief and reporting on his performance, but the Committee is confident that this tension will be constructive. Similarly it is useful that the Editor in Chief is a member of the Committee. As much as possible the performance of the Editor in Chief and The Cochrane Library will be judged using specific metrics. The Committee is developing these metrics, and will consult within and beyond the Collaboration before finalising them. A second editorial to be published within a few months will list the proposed metrics and describe the thinking behind them. Feedback will be welcomed. Our hope is that we will not have to resolve difficult disputes, but should such a problem arise, the Committee will take a view and offer advice to the CCSG. If the CCSG disagrees with the advice of the Oversight Committee, then it will explain why in writing. Should the Oversight Committee be unconvinced by the counterargument of the CCSG, then it may choose to express its opinion publicly. This situation would obviously be very uncomfortable, and we hope that it will not arise. Much better, however, to have an established mechanism for dealing with serious disputes, rather than having to rapidly create one, should such a dispute arise. Indeed, the existence of the Oversight Committee will, we hope, reduce the chances that such a dispute will arise. The Collaboration does have an Ombudsman to deal with general disputes, but the Oversight Committee will deal with any editorial disputes that might arise in relation to The Cochrane Library, and, unlike the JAMA Committee, this Committee will deal with all disputes, not just those with the owners. We emphasise again that the Oversight Committee and how it operates is a 'work in progress', and we will be grateful for all feedback.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.