Scholarpedia:Further enhancements
Responsibility of articles
It should made clear that the post-publication modifications to an article are under the curator responsibility, not under authors responsibility. In this sense the header of each published article should be changed as follows:
- Title
- revision number # curated by <curator name>
- based on:
- author1, author2 author3 (2008), Scholarpedia, 3(2):4162 + doi (with their corresponding links links)
- (eventually other republications)
Approve
Scholarpedia index
It should be clear that the scholarpedia index is there to rank new contributors, not to rank authors/curators/experts. The Scholarpedia index should be renamed in this sense. It would be called "ACTIVITY INDEX".
Approve
Peer-review
Allow any user to register approval for an article during peer-review
Currently, only Curators are recorded as approving of an article. However, when an article's development is supervised by an Editor, the Editor is likely to invite reviewers from outside of Scholarpedia. In the current model of Scholarpedia, these outside reviewers will receive no credit for their contribution (which, to be fair, is no worse than current, standard peer-review). In these cases, however, the Editor would have to take the place of an approving outside reviewer for the article to make it to publication. In cases when the article might not be obviously within the Editors specialization, this might reduce the perceived authority of the article. This perceived authority would be improved if the reviewer whom the editor invited could be allowed to publicly vouch for the article as well.
Approve
Contributions display and ranking
Proposals to enhance how contributions are presented.
Change contribution measurements
Currently these are measured as \((agreements - disagreements)/(totalCuratorDecisions)\). Perhaps revise to simply show these values? E.g.
S Name A:D 3 Leo Trottier 4:0
where A means "Agreed with (Senior) Curator vote", D means "Disagreed with (Senior) Curator vote" and S means "# of edits submitted". The Contributor listing could then be sorted first by S, then by A/(A+D), with the contributor only appearing in the list if A>D. Thus, actual contributions are preferenced in the ranking over simple votes, but votes are still worth something.
Approve
Remove 1.0 from Curator score as displayed on article page
The Curator is the curator, and that's that.
Approve
Only count post-publication edits in contribution measurements
(self-explanatory)
Approve
- ric (if the scholarpedia/activity index is there to rank new contributors)
- User:Leo Trottier
How to make sure that article authors are sufficiently prominent?
- Make author display bigger, more prominent
- see also Responsibility of articles
- Make contributors display less prominent (fainter, less saturated, etc.)
- Only display contributors listing to logged-in users
- Move contributors listing to bottom of article
- Have an AJAX-y way of hiding contributors listing, except for on-demand. Perhaps have it produce a column listing on the far right of the page (for example)
- Find some way of more clearly explaining (visually) the difference between Authors and contributors.
- Eliminate the curator from the list
- Properly rename the list "activity" or "post-publication/development activity"(see also Scholarpedia index)
Approve
- Leo Trottier (approve of all)
- Jonathan Williford (approve of 1-7, not sure why 8 is in this list?) - For example, in Neuronal cable theory, I only made 2 minor changes (fixing a broken link and , yet it looks like I'm a major participant in writing the article. If someone makes substantial edits, then it might make more sense to be listed as prominently as it is now.
Disapprove
- Ric
- 2, 3: this would not encourage people to contribute
One large user-sortable table for display of curator/user contributions
Initially sorted by number of articles authored and ->OR curated:
| Name | articles authored or curated | other article contributions | Activity index |
|---|
Approve
Article rejection
Editorial rejection during editorial review phase should be non-anonymous
Ideally every article that reaches the editorial review phase will go on to be published. The primary reason for its existence is to prevent the near-instantaneous creation of published articles if the Scholarpedia review system breaks down. Article rejection during this period should be discouraged.
