The work of the CPHG is carried out by a dedicated group of volunteer editors and paid support staff. As well as providing feedback on reviews, the editorial team develop policies and guidelines for the Group to ensure reviews are of high quality and reflect the needs of end users.
The editors all have the opportunity to review title proposals (via submitted Titile Registration Forms - TRFs) from prospective author teams. Each registered review is allocated a contact editor, whose role it is to compile and add to comments from the allotedSstatistician, Study Search Coordinator, LMIC advisor and Methods advisor and, at stage two of the editorial process, the external referees, for presentation to the athor team.
Dr Laurie Anderson
Assoc. Professor Maureen Dobbins
Ms Miranda Cumpston
Dr Jonathan Shepherd
Dr Rebecca Armstrong
Dr Hilary Thomson
Mr Daniel Francis
Dr Rob Anderson
Dr Philip Baker
Mr Simon Ellis
Dr Belinda Burford
Dr Ruhi Saith (Developing Countries Editorial Consultant)
Professor Sreekumaran Nair (Statistical editor)
Assoc Professor Elmer Villanueva (Statistical editor)
Editorial advisors undertake a variety of roles, according to expertise and interest, including mentoring authors, providing advice to the editorial group on policies, and/or contributing to TRF assessments.
Dr Eva Rehfuess (methods)
Dr Mark Petticrew
Professor Helen Roberts
Professor Margaret Whitehead
In support of the work of authors and the editorial group, we have many people on our membership database who have indicated a willingness to peer review health promotion and public health reviews. Interests and areas of expertise are recorded to direct us to appropriate people when requesting reviewers for specific topics.
As of August 2014 we have had over 100 people acting as peer referees of a protocol or review with CPHG.
Review Advsiroy Group members
Review Advisory Groups are established by author teams to help review authors outline the parameters of their proposed review to ensure that the end product reflects the needs of its potential readers and users. Systematic reviews are likely to be more relevant to the end user and of higher quality if they are informed by advice from people with a range of experiences.
Examples of opinions sought from the review advisory group:
- Does the review question seem to capture the essence of the topic under review (will it sound interesting and useful to its target audience)?
- What interventions should be included in the review?
- Which populations should be included in the review and which should be excluded?
- What types of outcomes should the review include?
- How should equity issues be highlighted in the review?
- Are the needs of developing countries considered in the review?
Interested in contributing?
If you are interested in oerforming in any of these roles and believe you have the skills and enthusiasm needed to do so, please contact the Managing Editor, Jodie Doyle, at email@example.com,au