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.

About admitting new Citizendium editors

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.

Step-by-step application 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. Review 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. While all Citizens are required to have, at a minimum, some information about their interests and educational background, editors must in addition have the information typically found in an academic or professional bio (e.g., degrees, institutions, and professional affiliations).
   • Other (identity) information. We use this information to confirm a person's identity, which means establishing that: (1) a person by the name given actually exists; (2) a person with that name controls the e-mail address used; (3) the person so-named and reachable has the approximate configuration of credentials and interests listed in the bio. As to how to use this information to confirm identity, see below.
   • CV. Review it.
2. Confirm the person's identity:
   • It is usually easy to confirm an editor's identity, as many editors simply link to their CVs on their department pages and use the e-mail address they got from their institution. This makes it easy to confirm name, e-mail address, and a few bio details.
   • What to do
     • Examine the e-mail address.
     • Visit any weblinks offered; there, look for the name as well as, preferably, the e-mail address, and evidence that the person has the characteristics listed in the biography.
     • If necessary, try using your search engine of choice for more information about the person. We frequently do this for author applications.
     • Review the CV
   • What to check for
     • You must see evidence that there is a person so named.
     • You must also see evidence that that name is attached to the e-mail address. If the e-mail address comes from a free service, you should find that e-mail address listed on a reasonably credible website somewhere, attached to the person's name (hint, you can Google the e-mail address itself).
     • It would be unreasonable to ask anyone to confirm every detail of the bio. It is enough to confirm several key points, which can usually be done quickly.
   • What to do if identity is not confirmed
     • You can ask for more info from the applicant. To do this, type a note in the "Comment" field at the bottom of the page. For example, you might say: "Please e-mail me at ___________, supplying more information that will allow us to identify you and connect you to your e-mail address. Several things might help here. For example, send the e-mail using a non-free e-mail address (especially one from an organization you've listed in your bio); follow the "BeenVerified" link on our application page, go through their (free) process, and send me the link to your BeenVerified page; or cite people that we can look up online and ask about you (who would be familiar with your e-mail address); or cite current members; or scan a copy of an ID card (but we might still need to connect your ID to your e-mail address); or list websites that mention your name, preferably ones that include your e-mail address."
     • Most people are very cooperative when asking for more information; they wouldn't have applied if they didn't understand that we need to know who they are.
3. Confirm the person's qualifications for editorship
   • Review qualifications. When you review the CV, look for two things: evidence of minimum qualification to be a Citizendium editor (be familiar with our requirements).
   • Specialty editorship. Note that a person can be qualified for a "specialty editorship" even if he or she is not qualified for general editorship. To accept a person as a specialty editor, (a) accept the application, checking off the workgroup under which the specialty falls, (b) navigate to the new person's page, and place a notice at the bottom of the person's page, such as the one seen here, for example. The notice should be brief, italicized, and signed (not dated) by you.
   • Questions? In case of any question, contact the editor-in-chief and/or other EPAs.

The editor application review rules

Here are some general notes:

Pseudonyms

• 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.