Despite my request clearly not having anything to do with the review content, I was forced to submit it via Cochrane’s feedback system. The lengthy correspondence is posted here
Comment submitted via the Cochrane feedback system on 11 January 2020
On 24 October 2019 I wrote to Editor-in-Chief Karla Soares Weiser requesting a link from the amended review published on 2 October 2019 to her news article about it [1]. I received no acknowledgement of the request. I chased on 17 November and again on 7 January when Dr Soares-Weiser passed it on to Senior Editorial Officer Rachel Marshall. I was told by Ms Marshall that the only way my request would be considered is if I submitted it as a comment on the review. This system is designed for comments about review content which are forwarded to the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) who then liaise with the Central Editorial team about a response. I reiterated that this is a request for a link from the review to related Cochrane content, and therefore would not require any change to the review. I also pointed out that there is an existing system of linking from reviews to related content. For example, there is a link from the previous version of the review [2] to a (now archived) Cochrane Clinical Answer [3].
After nearly three months, despite chasing, I did not receive acknowledgement or response to a simple and reasonable request for transparency around this review. I am considering making a formal complaint about how the request has been handled.
[1] https://www.cochrane.org/news/publication-cochrane-review-exercise-therapy-chronic-fatigue-
Syndrome
[2] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub7/full
[3] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cca/doi/10.1002/cca.755/full