Manifold Atlas:Editorial Policy

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search

Revision as of 19:01, 24 September 2009

This page describes the proposed editorial criteria and processes in the Manifold Atlas.

If you have any comments, questions or criticisms, please write them on the discussion page.

An article is called mature when it satisfies the criteria of correctness, completeness and clarity.

Correctness: the manifold Atlas is a reliable reference for research about manifolds. Therefore an essential criteria for an article is that all information in it is correct.

Completeness: completeness is a difficult notion to define. However as the Manifold Atlas is a reference source, articles on a given subject should not ignore essential aspects of that subject. In addition, a mature article should adequately reference the relevant mathematical literature for the areas it covers.

Clarity: it is important that information is readily and clearly available for readers. This is especially important for the invariants section of articles in the Manifolds chapter but holds for all parts of all pages.

After an evolving page reaches maturiy, the editorial board will organise for it to be refereed by at least two members of the board.

The refereeing editors should first agree together on their decision. They may decide to:
- 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 rather and extremely rare as only mature pages will be refereed.

Feedback for author-based pages should be given by sending an email to the responsible authors.

For open-editing pages requiring minor changes, the refereeing editors can simply make the changes themselves or email them to the [administraitors].

For open-editing pages which require significant changes or which are rejected, the responsible editors should write a brief, informative report on the discussion page of the article being reviewed.
- The report should outline the editors view of the deficiencies of the page and will serve as a plan for the open-editing community to improve the page.

When a version of a page is approved the responsible editors should email the revision number of the approved version of the page to the a administraitors.

After an evolving page is approved, a static, citable version of that page bearing the blue approval message is created which links back to the evolving page.

Evolving pages which have been approved by the editorial board bear a green editorial message which links to the corresponding static version of the page.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 * The last two possibilities should be rather and extremely rare as only mature pages will be refereed.
-* Feedback for [[author-based pages]] should be given by sending an email to the responsible authors.
+* Feedback for [[Manifold Atlas:Writing groups#Author-based pages|author-based pages]] should be given by sending an email to the responsible authors.
-* For [[Open-editing pages]] requiring minor changes, the refereeing editors can simply make the changes themselves or email them to the [administraitors].
+* For [[Manifold Atlas:Writing groups#Open-editing pages|open-editing pages]] requiring minor changes, the refereeing editors can simply make the changes themselves or email them to the [administraitors].
 * For open-editing pages which require significant changes or which are rejected, the responsible editors should write a brief, informative report on the [[discussion page]] of the article being reviewed.