Manifold Atlas: Editorial Policy

From Manifold Atlas
Revision as of 09:21, 1 September 2010 by Diarmuid Crowley (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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, 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 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:
  1. approve the page as it stands, requiring only minor changes or no changes,
  2. approve the page but requiring significant changes,
  3. 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.

2.1 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.

2.2 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.

2.3 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.

3 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.

4 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.
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox