Manifold Atlas:Editorial Policy
(→Editorial outcome) |
(→Editorial criteria) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Editorial criteria == | == Editorial criteria == | ||
| − | + | Refereeing Atlas pages ensures that the information they contain is reliable. | |
| − | + | In particular [[Manifold Atlas:Evolving pages and static pages#Static pages|approved pages]] will be 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, the may have several authors or they may perhaps be the work of a large group of Atlas users. | ||
== Editorial process == | == Editorial process == | ||
Revision as of 09:51, 1 September 2010
This page describes the editorial criteria and processes in the Manifold Atlas.
The refereeing process is organised and overseen by the editorial board.
1 Editorial criteria
Refereeing Atlas pages ensures that the information they contain is reliable.
In particular approved pages will be 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, the may have several authors or they may perhaps be the work of a large group of Atlas users.
2 Editorial process
After an evolving page reaches maturiy, the managing editor will organise for it to be evaluated by a member of the board: he or she may or may not wish to consult a referee or referees.
- After reviewing the page, the responsible editor may decide to either:
- approve a page as it stands, requiring only minor changes or no changes,
- approve a page but requiring significant changes,
- reject a page.
- The last two possibilities should be very rare and extremely rare as only mature pages will be refereed.
- Feedback for author-based pages will be sent by email to the responsible authors.
- For open-editing pages requiring minor changes, the administrators will simply make the changes directly to the page in consultation with the significant contributors.
- For open-editing pages which require significant changes or which are rejected, the responsible editor will write a brief, informative report on the discussion page of the page under review.
- The report will outline the editor's view of the deficiencies of the page and will serve as a plan for the open-editing community to improve the page.
3 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.
