Scholarpedia talk:Become an editor

Revision as of 20:05, 29 January 2009

Increasing the number of editors in Scholarpedia is vital to monitor its quality and to insure its growth and its survival.

Ideally, each editor should invite/recruit 2-3 new editors, and invite 50-100 new authors.

Riccardo Guida (Ric) suggested that we try to speed up the editors' recruiting process (so that the project grows exponentially) by establishing a mechanism to inform, choose and recruit new editors of high experience.

Suggested requirements for new editors

1. Have a PhD or MD.
2. Be an experienced and acknowledged expert in his/her field.
3. Be recommended by at least 2 curators of Scholarpedia.
4. Be willing to spend a few hours per week performing editorial duties: inviting authors and reviewers; recruiting other editors.

Editors without a category

Ric suggested that we should also have editors without categories, i.e., users with editorial privileges but with no assigned topic. These people are like "consulting editors". That is, they will not need to be involved in peer-review and other editorial chores, but they will be responsible for making "good suggestions" of whom to invite. These people should be the most prominent stars in their fields, e.g., Nobel laureates, so that we can use their names and their status/expertise in our invitation to attract other stars.

Ric: Should we list them in the Encyclopediae pages (Category pages) as (1) "Editors" or (2) acknowledge them as "Consulting editors" (as presently did in Encyclopedia_of_quantum_and_statistical_field_theory)? Moreover, what to do in case an encyclopedia is published?

Eugene: YES, they should be acknowledged on the encyclopedia page, as Ric has already started to do. When an encyclopedia is published, it will list the editors on the front page and, somewhere on next to the table of content, other editors.

Paul: I suggest the term "Advisory Editorial Board". One role that we can ask of these editors is to have them review one or two entries a year. --Pkatz 15:05, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Who chooses editors among different competing candidates?

1. Proposal: The editor in chief has the last word, advised by editors of nearest categories -- Ric

How to practically advertise the opening?

1. In any case before opening editorial positions in any category there should be some reflection to avoid overlapping categories and prepare an overall plan of development (see the wide categories I've prepared for physics: the same should be done for mathematics, biology....) -- Ric
2. To start I propose to create a visible page "How to contribute" and adding in that page a section "Become an editor" -- Ric

How to dismiss editors who abondon their category?

Eugene: I suggest to invite editors for 1 year and then have an automatic extension every year if the editor is still active and does not abandon his authors and articles. If the editor is non-active, he would not even notice that his editorial privileges disappeared (they could always be restored later, if needed).

I agree. That should be clear since the beginning to all new editors. -- Ric