[pmwiki-users] PmWiki Magazine proposed Submission/Approval Process

Sandy sandy at onebit.ca
Thu Sep 28 11:36:57 CDT 2006

As is, the author pretty much takes the article through the entire 
process. Do we need an editor / mentor / co-ordinator to reassure the 
author that "Yes, the time has passed with no objections, consider it 
accepted"? We're in a lovely grey area between a free-for-all and formal 


Henrik Bechmann wrote:
> Looks good to me..
> - Henrik
> Ben Wilson wrote:
>> I have drafted a proposed process for the Magazine.[1] I tried to
>> create a process that allows the author a measure of freedom to
>> publish an article while retaining accountability and an opportunity
>> for some degree of peer review. I'm giving a terse summary of the
>> process here, but the site has greater detail.
>> The process is essentially five stage:
>> 1. Proposal
>> 2. Acceptance of Proposal
>> 3. Write the Article
>> 4. (Peer) Review
>> 5. Publication
>> Proposal summaries comprise a title, categories, and abstract of the
>> article, and are listed on a proposal page by day. This puts others on
>> notice so two author's don't write on the same topic in a vacuum.
>> Peers have a period of time (I thought a week or two) to raise
>> concerns with a proposed article. Authors and peers resolve the
>> concern, and if necessary, the Author withdraws the article. Accepted
>> article summaries are moved to a "coming articles" page.
>> When an article is accepted, the author writes the article somewhere
>> (off-wiki, or not in Magazine group). When written, the author submits
>> the article to some peer review group for comment. Comments are then
>> integrated and the author repeats the process as desired. Pm is given
>> a chance to bless, too.
>> Article is published.
>> Whenever the author has to wait for comment, there is a time limit so
>> he does not have to wait too long. Thus, if no comments are made, the
>> article can proceed smoothly to publication. Silence means nobody
>> takes issue with the article.
>> I added a bit for abuse---when an author decides to ignore the process
>> or if things get too heated. I've rarely met a more amiable group than
>> the PmWiki Community, so I thought it might sound a bit too heavy.
>> But, I know I get irate without my coffee, so I thought to err on the
>> side of caution.
>> The way it is worded now, the process is a bit milquetoast. There's no
>> voting, and arbitration is viewed as a last resort (and punted to Pm).
>> I thought it was a good place to start, and as a need to firm up
>> specific phases becomes apparent, we can address that need then.
>> Please read the process and provide input. Perhaps a wiki-way approach
>> (bullets after a phase, signatures w/ date stamp, etc.) would work
>> better than email, but I leave it to you to chose your way of
>> commenting. :-)
>> Ben Wilson
>> [1]: http://pmwiki.org/wiki/Magazine/ArticleSubmissionAndApprovalProcess
>> _______________________________________________
>> pmwiki-users mailing list
>> pmwiki-users at pmichaud.com
>> http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users

More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list