How to Join a Cochrane Review Group and Register a Title
Joining a Cochrane Review Group is not automatic. Each group has its own process for accepting new author teams, and understanding that process saves time and frustration.
Step 1: Identify the relevant Cochrane Review Group. The Cochrane Collaboration organizes its 53 review groups by clinical area. The Cochrane Heart Group covers cardiovascular interventions, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group covers orthopedic and rheumatology topics, and so on. Visit the Cochrane Library website to find the group that matches your research question.
Step 2: Contact the Managing Editor with a preliminary proposal. Before investing time in a full protocol, send a brief proposal to the Managing Editor describing your research question, its clinical relevance, and why a Cochrane review on this topic is needed. The editor will tell you whether the topic is within scope, whether a similar review already exists or is in progress, and whether the group has capacity to support your review.
Step 3: Assemble a qualified author team. Cochrane Review Groups expect author teams to include members with systematic review experience, clinical expertise in the topic area, and statistical competence for the planned analyses. If your team lacks any of these, the group may suggest you collaborate with an existing Cochrane author or complete Cochrane training first.
Step 4: Develop and submit your protocol. Once the Review Group accepts your title registration, you develop a full protocol using the Cochrane Handbook template. This protocol specifies your PICO question, search strategy across all mandatory databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase at minimum), inclusion and exclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment plan using RoB 2 or ROBINS-I, data extraction procedures, and statistical analysis plan. The protocol undergoes peer review before you begin the review.
Step 5: Use RevMan for your review. RevMan (Review Manager) is the Cochrane Collaboration's proprietary software for conducting and formatting systematic reviews. While Cochrane has become more flexible about allowing alternative tools for analysis, RevMan remains the standard platform for preparing Cochrane review manuscripts. Learning RevMan adds to the upfront time investment but ensures your review meets CDSR formatting requirements.
Step 6: Complete the review following your approved protocol. Deviations from the protocol must be documented and justified. This discipline ensures transparency but can be challenging when unexpected findings require methodological adjustments. Discuss any needed changes with your editorial team before implementing them.
Common Misconceptions About Cochrane and Independent Reviews
Several persistent myths lead researchers to make suboptimal choices about which pathway to pursue.
Misconception 1: Cochrane reviews are inherently higher quality. While Cochrane's structured process promotes consistency, methodological quality depends on the research team's expertise and diligence, not the publication venue alone. Well-conducted independent reviews following PRISMA 2020 and using appropriate risk of bias assessment can match or exceed the quality of poorly executed Cochrane reviews. The AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool evaluates systematic review quality regardless of whether the review is Cochrane or independent.
Misconception 2: Independent reviews are not taken seriously by guideline developers. The WHO, NICE, and other major guideline organizations routinely cite high-quality independent systematic reviews alongside Cochrane reviews. What matters is methodological transparency, comprehensive searching, appropriate risk of bias assessment, and clear reporting, not the publication venue.
Misconception 3: You cannot use GRADE in an independent review. The GRADE framework for assessing certainty of evidence was developed partly within the Cochrane Collaboration but is freely available for use in any systematic review. Many high-quality independent reviews apply GRADE, and several journals now require or strongly encourage it. Using GRADE in an independent review signals methodological sophistication.
Misconception 4: Cochrane reviews are free to produce. While Cochrane does not charge author fees for CDSR publication, producing a Cochrane review involves significant costs that are often invisible. The time commitment is 2 to 3 times longer than an independent review. Access to required databases (Embase in particular) may require institutional subscriptions costing thousands annually. RevMan training takes time. Author teams may need to purchase access to full-text articles that are behind paywalls. The total cost in time and resources is substantial even without direct publication fees.
Misconception 5: You must choose one path and stick with it forever. Many successful researchers publish both Cochrane and independent systematic reviews throughout their careers. Starting with a Cochrane review builds methodological credibility, while subsequent independent reviews allow faster publication and broader topic coverage. The skills transfer directly between the two pathways.
Regardless of whether you conduct a Cochrane or independent systematic review, a PRISMA flow diagram is essential for transparently reporting your study selection process. Cochrane reviews require the PRISMA flow diagram as part of their standard template, and virtually all journals expect one in independent submissions.
Use the PRISMA diagram builder to create a compliant diagram that documents the number of records identified through database searching, records removed as duplicates, records screened at title and abstract level, full-text articles assessed for eligibility, studies included in the qualitative synthesis, and studies included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). This tool ensures your diagram meets PRISMA 2020 specifications whether your review is destined for CDSR or an independent journal.
For Cochrane reviews, the flow diagram must also include records identified through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which is a mandatory search source. Independent reviews should include CENTRAL as well when the topic involves clinical interventions, though it is not strictly required outside the Cochrane framework.
