Confident "get stuffed" message from Cochrane, just received. [I also complained about the Exercise review update process, so there is a third complaint for them to respond to...maybe they're saving that for tomorrow?]
Dear Caroline,
We have considered the following complaints.
a) Complaint regarding the Editor-in-Chief dated 23.3.2023.
b) Complaint regarding information on the appointment of a consumer advocate to the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee dated 23.3.2023
Your complaints, along with your comments have been noted. With regard to our policies and procedures, the Terms of Reference for the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee and Complaints Resolution process will be revisited as part of a scheduled piece of work that the Head of Governance will take forward.
We now consider the matter closed. We do not believe further correspondence will be helpful. Thus, no further correspondence on these subjects will be considered.
Kind regards
Catherine
Wow, interesting. I thought there would be more strategic dallying. Or more strategic a reply. And we'd all have to wait to see what came back. And it would be a less direct answer of 'who they are' (based on how they handle things). But then I guess the only information it confirms is 'that they are not going to tell you' what they are intending to do or when [which indicates they feel that they are entitled to that right now vis a vis whatever their intentions are].
I hesitate to suggest anything kneejerk either - so do NOT take this as an instruction, just intrigue thinking out loud. In fact, I'd certainly say there is no rush your end to act with this now that you've been given such a direct and clear reply, certainly not before having a good old mull-over of
all the possibilities. The response has been so swift to provide plenty of time to think if, what and in what order re: any actions. And Cochrane have been clear
they want nothing further from you re: this. The clock has started but new process their end would need to be given some time anyway so
option 1 (the obvious-seeming right now):
But it does feel like initially: now you have your reply that can/could now be sent to the Charity Commission with a pretty straightforward question: is that how
any organisation should deal with complaints about anything, particularly a where she herself [in prior email] noted "we recognise the need to look at it impartially" in the previous email, which is quite a different thing to 'have been noted' without any such process? [being the question]
They even noted they don't have a process, or a timeframe what/when for this, in the same email they said 'discussion over we ain't looking at these complaints'. So ..
And I'm not sure that telling someone not to contact them again about a matter is something I'd expect either. Certainly not flagging new information that was pretty blinking serious - something involved in changing the wording on the main effect size and confidence in a report they allowed to be 'well-distributed and used'. The question is maybe whether the Charity Commission think the same, or more accurately: do they [the CC] wish all those in their sector to have the same entitlement from any queries ever, based on such a precedent?
The line 'we now consider the matter closed' basically feels like such a 'go signal' for the press send that it feels like a trap right now without a bit of musing. Given it is so short and sweet it might as well be accompanied by the FOI pack of the emails, her initial reply and this. I guess it is optional whether you include the 'hit reply instead of send' one to 'bulk it out for them' tho that one does cut to the matter nicely.
But then to think laterally (which it is always useful to take a pause to do so when you think you might've been handed a 'shiny keys' situation) e.g. maybe it also works v well from a court of public opinion perspective instead, or just via doing that first. And maybe there are other things that are smart that just need time to inspire up as good next move.
It certainly flags up the contrast with Nice's process on the same subject matter - and striving for process and appropriate independence as stand-out by comparison. A flow-chart of the 2 side-by-side almost in my mind on a powerpoint slide.
Or... there probably is a nuanced, serious article [or more] to be had here about the 'who are we as a sector'. I don't know whether there are individuals like David Black who might dissect the process and implications of this 'short but clear in implications' back-and-forth, and the good news is the brevity of reply, and the focusedness [and obvious issue] of the initial complaint means all the material could fit into the one article making it a self-contained little number on 'is this how we deal with the issue of ....'.
I don't know enough for sure (other than situations I've seen in newspapers over the years) to know whether these, or other ideas, might seem to increase or decrease the chances of the CC spotting the issue at hand. I guess the question of 'public interest' can be answered one way or the other in theory, but others might know whether 'in specific' for the CC and things like this if there is a 'specific' they have in mind etc.
Either way, I guess that in theory one day, They [the CC] can note the difference in length and number of communications between when they [Cochrane] are 'email happy' as they want an independent to change something vis a vis less email happy when someone asks for something they've flagged to be investigated using proper process.
And the point rather is:
if the change they [Karla in the end with rep for 'the authors'] made during that email exchange was apparently unimportant enough to warrant being able to looked into by any process not involving the person the complaint was about as the decision-maker, then why did they make it happen over what was a very protracted [if you include the data team and previous post-holder emails] exchange, and why have they not simply rectified it?
