CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure

Template:Editor Pages This is a help page for the editors who review other editor applications, i.e., Editorial Personnel Administrators.

The editor application procedure

When we approve a new editor application (by pressing a button!), we automatically create the editor's user account and add to that editor's user page the Category:CZ Editors tag, which adds the person to our list of editors. Only Editorial Personnel Administrators possess the authority to add such a tag. It is possible that someone begins as an author in our system, and then asks to be made an editor; then it's just a matter of one of us adding the tag to the user page.

Editor applicants use the same form that authors do; the review procedure is also similar to the procedure for authors, except that editor candidates should also send to personnel@citizendium.org two additional items: a CV or resume attached (or linked), as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page. Both additional requirements may be fulfilled by a CV that is hosted on an official work Web page.

The step-by-step review procedure

Before you review any applications, please go to this page and bookmark it. (The editor-in-chief has it in his "quick links" at the top of his browser.) Please get in the habit of checking that page every time you log on to the wiki.

Here is how to review, and approve or disapprove, an application:

1. Read application materials:
   • E-mail. The thing to look at here is whether the e-mail address is from a free, anonymous service, or a paid service, and whether the person's name is part of the e-mail address. If it is from a free service, we will require evidence that connects the person's e-mail address with the person's name (see below on that). The e-mail address should have been confirmed by the time you look at the application (the person won't be able to log in without doing so).
   • Main areas of interest. After you look over the person's CV/resume, you should make sure that only those workgroup topics are checked in which the person can claim a bona fide specialization (see below).
   • Name. The name should appear to be the name of a real person, not an Internet handle, and not just the person's first name or last name. Titles and degrees (such as "Dr." and "Ph.D.") may not be in the name. Note that the name can be edited, but should only be edited to expand to the full name, or to remove a title or degree.
   • Bio. Please read the bio all the way through. It must appear to be legitimate. For editors,

The editor application review rules

Here are some general notes:

• Only duly designated editorial personnel administrators can make decisions on editor applications.
• If there is some significant question about a particular application, consult with other EPAs or with the editor-in-chief.
• We check for (and, if necessary, request) more pieces of information (see above). We must be quite sure that the person has the main credentials he or she claims. This requires a link to a credible Web site where the person's e-mail address can be found, or some equally credible means of establishing bona fides.
• We use {{ewelcome}} (the "editor welcome" template) rather than {{awelcome}}.
• We add both [[Category:CZ Editors]] and the category of the most appropriate workgroup, such as [[Category:Philosophy Editors]].
• In the welcome message, it would be a good idea to include a link to the discipline editor category page (e.g., Category:Philosophy Editors) and perhaps a few other pages such as the workgroup home page (e.g., CZ:Biology Workgroup).
• Finished applications are filed in the "Editors - Yes - Done" folder. Denied applications are placed in "Editors - No - Done". E-mails that do not contain complete applications, i.e., which need more information, are placed in "Need more info" until the additional information is received.

• The general rules for "traditionally academic fields" and "traditionally professional fields" are found in this section of the Policy Outline.
• Note that in cases where a degree comes from a little-known university, investigation of the accreditation of the university may be appropriate.
• Decisions are to be made solely based on the stated objective criteria. In particular, no decision will be made based on political, religious, or other ideological considerations. Political progressives should admit conservatives, and political conservatives should admit progressives; atheists should admit Christians, Christians Muslims, Muslims Jews; feminists should admit reactionaries and reactionaries should admit feminists; and so forth. Any person who feels his application has been denied on grounds of ideology may have it re-reviewed by another editorial personnel administrator, and/or the editor-in-chief.
• Persons who are denied admission should receive a respectful and objective explanation.
• In cases that are easy to decide, any editorial admininistrator may make a decision; in more difficult cases, for an applicant in an area about which one of the editorial administrators has some special knowledge, that administrator should make the decision.

Editorial Personnel Administrators as a group

As a group, Editorial Personnel Administrators are not considered a governance body. We are, essentially, project bureaucrats, handing out editorships to new editors. We don't make the policy according to which we make these decisions.

We do not (yet) have a mailing list. If you have a "tough one," you can poll the group or ask the editor-in-chief.