Towards improving the copy -editing experience

  • Published on
    01-Jan-2016

  • View
    10

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript

Towards improving the copy-editing experience

Towards improving the copy-editing experienceElizabeth Royle, Harriet MacLehose and John Hilton+Conflict of interest statementsElizabeth Royle |Harriet MacLehose | John Hilton

Employees of Wiley or CochraneNo actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this presentation

+Outline of workshopNew accreditation testTraining and monitoringChecklistsStyle GuideResources required in futureCommon errorsMethods of communicationUseful feedback+New accreditation test+Form of testPart of a reviewEmail to candidates with instructionsWord document use Track ChangesState time taken to completeReturn to CESCan be completed at any timeCan be completed in any place

+Training for CEs & potential CEsGeneral distance learning:Style Guide, checklists, HandbookMECIR, PLEACSTailored distance learning:EmailsWebinars (if demand exists)Face to face training:Individual CEsRevMan 6, and PLEACS/MECIR equivalents+Monitoring qualityWill cover all accredited CEs (CES + CRGs)

Informally:ER via Archie Compare functionRoutinely, or in response to ME commentsUniversal, qualitative assessment of workDirect feedback to CE +/- ME concerned

+Monitoring qualityFormally, via audit: In conjunction with CEUChecking particular points across range of assignments, for example:Consistent use of ize or ise, eg or e.g., etc Abbreviations stated in full initiallyCorrect use of RevMan headingsActive versus passive voiceReference IDs in form Name Year

+Copy-editing checklistsDeveloped by ERC, CEU, Copy Edit SupportTwo 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 sourcesERC 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)

+Pre-copy-editing checklist: for editorial teamsWhy?Developed to establish consistent standard for articles being sent for copy-editingHighlight items that copy-editor cannot remedyReduce unnecessarycommunicationbetween CRGs and copy-editorsWho should use it?Editor who prepares the Cochrane Review for copy-editingWhen in editorial process should it be used?Before sent for copy-editing (but could be used throughout editorial process)

+Copy-editing checklist: for copy-editorsOutlines the items that copy-editors should check when they are copy-editing a protocol, review, or updateDeveloped 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).+Whats next?Have a look through the checklists.Would they be helpful in your role, such as an editor gettingready 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 GuideResource designed to help people responsible for copy editing to copy edit reviews and other Cochrane Collaboration documents in a consistent mannerIt contains guidance on everything from the correct use of abbreviations and heading styles to presenting statistical and mathematical dataCochrane Style Guide Basics: two-page summaryAbout to be updated with over 100 items of feedbackNew layout, new formatOnline detail, PDF low-tech+

Resources for CEsCochrane Style GuideCopy-editing checklistsCE-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 errorsObjectives: 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 errorsInconsistent use of abbreviations:Abbreviation stated, then term not used again in whole reviewAbbreviation stated, sometimes used, but other times restated in fullAbbreviations to be restated for ConclusionsInsufficient explanation of technical terms:hypoxaemia(lowbloodoxygenlevels)intracranial(withintheskull)endotoxic(septic)shockfrequent etiologies (causes) include . . .

+Common errorsPresentation 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 ERAuthors manual insertion of bullets/ numbers in lists:Particular problem in tablesShould use RevMan buttons to do these

+Common errorsUse of which and thatwhich is best used after a comma:the placebo, that was cunningly disguised, was harmlessthe placebo, which was cunningly disguised, was harmlessthat 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 textMethicillin-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 1 system (Schaper 2004) and the Name 2 system (Oyibo 2001) have been developed.+Placing of citations in textMethicillin-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 21 system (Schaper 2004) and the Name 12 system (Oyibo 2001) have been developed (Oyibo 2001; Schaper 2004).

+Incorrect: Chapter of Handbook X

+Correct: Chapter of Handbook

+Tolerated blemishAssessment of risk of biasJadad now obsoleteNew Risk of bias toolUpdated 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-checkSpelled correctly with same word suggested:Fortified, specific, refined, defined, classified, modified, sufficient, justification, influenced, confidence, clarificationSpelled correctly with other words suggested:five: vae, vel, vue, vet, vex, vieflour: ow, owe, owl, own, owed, owesfigures: gurneys, glues, guars, guess, guest, gurusfindings: nodding, nudging, fin, Nadi, nedi, Nadine

+Identification of the culpritsTwo ligatures not recognised by RevMan

+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

+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

+Real life: continuedThe 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 ERPersonal email to ER required for submissionsArchie tasks do not allow for CEU screeningState review title in Subject line, pleasePut variables at top of Archie-generated messagesTickets work better than Archie tasksNot compulsoryPhone or Skype if discussion requiredPhone number in ERs email signature

+Communication: ER to CRGsDoes it work for you?CES processesStylistic preferencesDoes CEU screening have implications?Feedback (to CES and from CES)Response to complaints

+