Manifold Atlas: Editorial Policy
This page describes the editorial criteria and processes in the Manifold Atlas.
The refereeing process is organised and overseen by the editorial board.
Contents |
1 Editorial criteria
Refereeing Atlas pages ensures that the information they contain is reliable.
In particular approved pages are static, peer reviewed and scientifically citable documents.
We use the term mature to describe a page that has reached a high standard and is ready to be refereed. The essential criteria are:
- Correctness: the page should contain only correct information,
- Clarity: the page should be well-written and clearly presented,
- Thoroughness: all non-trivial statements should be justified either by a proof or a precise reference; moreover the page as a whole should adequately refer to the relevant literature.
Note that there are at least two paths to maturity: pages on the Atlas can either develop to maturity or be submitted directly.
Note also that pages may have a single author, they may have several authors or they may perhaps be the work of a large group of Atlas users.
2 Preparation
Once the managing editor judges that a page is mature, they will organize for it to be evaluated by a member of the board as follows:
- If the page is an open-editing page then there is a period of user consultation as described below to determine a set of authors and responsible authors.
- The managing editor will also find a responsible editor to evaluate the page.
Once the above points are settled the page will be submitted for evaluation: the administrators shall
- edit-protect the page,
- place the being refereed stub on the page.
2.1 User consultation
This is a process for mature open-editing pages whereby a set of authors and responsible authors is identified from amongst the Atlas users who worked on the page.
- If the page is approved, the authors will be acknowledged as the creators of the static page.
- The responsible authors will be involved with communicating with the responsible editor and the authors of the page during the refereeing process.
In conjunction with the administrators, the managing editor will determine the prima-facie authors and responsible authors of a page from its edit history.
The administrators will then email all users of the page, informing them of the managing editor's wish to have the page refereed with the proposed sets of authors and responsible authors.
The page's users will then have a period of two weeks in which to respond. For example:
- They may express the wish for more time to work on the page.
- They may ask to be included in the list of authors, giving reasons for this request.
- They may ask to be removed from the list of authors.
The final decision as to who is an author of a page remains with the managing editor.
3 Editorial process
After an evolving page reaches maturity, the managing editor will organise for it to be evaluated by a member of the editorial board.
The responsible editor will have the page refereed: either by themselves or by another expert.
After reviewing the page, the responsible editor may decide to either:
- approve the page as it stands, requiring only minor changes or no changes,
- approve the page but requiring significant changes,
- not approve the page.
The last two possibilities should be respectively uncommon and very rare as only mature pages will be refereed.
The procedure from here is just as for a journal except that the authors make changes directly to the Atlas page.
3.1 Page approved as it stands
In this case, modulo correcting typographical errors and very small points, the responsible editor approves the page.
- The responsible editor will send the referee's report to the responsible author and the managing editor.
- If corrections are required, the responsible editor will also inform the administrators so that the page can be edited by the authors.
- Once any corrections are made, the responsible authors will inform the administrators.
3.2 Page approved requiring changes
The responsible editor will send their summary and referee's report to the responsible author and CC the administrators.
- If any changes are required or suggested, the administrators will make the page restricted-editing for the authors to make changes.
- Once the changes are made, the responsible authors will inform responsible editor and administrators.
- The responsible editor (in consultation with the referee if appropriate) will review the up-dated page and either approve it, or request further changes.
3.3 Page not approved
If the page is not accepted, which may occur straight away or even after changes being made, the responsible editor will notify the managing editor with a short explanation of their decision.
- The managing editor will communicate this decision to the responsible authors and the page will be returned to the development stage.
4 Review by the editorial board
When a page is approved by the reponsible editor, this decision will be communicated to the editorial board for their final approval.
5 Editorial outcome
When a page is approved by the editorial board, a static, citable version of that page is created on the Atlas.
- The static page is named: Page_name/nth-edition.
- The static page is cloned and placed on the Atlas as the latest version of the evolving page.
- The static page bears the blue approval message which links to the corresponding cloned evolving page.
- The evolving page is now bears green approval message which links to the static page.