User Tools

Site Tools


The review process

All articles in Encyclopedia Magnetica are created in three main steps.

Graphics: photos, drawings, diagrams

The authors of Encyclopedia Magnetica use every opportunity to take photos of various magnetic and electromagnetic devices. All graphics created by the authors themselves are then released under free licence (CC-BY-3.0 or similar) so that the readers can freely use it (see also: About Encyclopedia Magnetica). As soon as these materials become available they are uploaded to Magnetica so they can be accessed. However, writing the associated text is a much longer process so for some time there might be “articles” which contain just photos of the objects in question.

This is because we believe that having such photos available, even with just a single-line definition and without full description, is still more valuable to the users than not having any materials at all. All and will be developed in the full articles as soon as it is possible.

Similar applies to other , which are being edited, for any reason.

Writing stage

Commonly an article is written by one author. Larger/longer articles can be written by several people. In any case, the name of the author(s) is always given at the top of the page.

Encyclopedia Magnetica presents only information, which was already published and can be found in other sources. The details of these sources are always given at the bottom of each page, in the section titled References.

The first step towards quality of the information is taken at the writing stage. Any statement is based on some source of information, which is always given, even if the authors are experts in the topic to be described.

Many types of references are used:

  • published books
  • articles published in scientific and technical journals
  • trustworthy websites (news archives and portals, manufacturer's website, universities, etc.)
  • data sheets of materials, components and devices
  • photographs of actual devices
  • opinions of specialist obtained by the author(s) through direct contact with the specialist person (this information is also stated in the References, with the name of the specialist given openly)

In particular, a forum website is not deemed to be satisfactorily “trustworthy” source.

If a reliable source of information is not available, then such statement will be deleted from the article. In the viewpoint of the Authors it is better to have the information incomplete, rather than plainly incorrect. But of course, every effort is made to present the information as complete as possible.

Reviewing stage

Encyclopedia Magnetica is a secondary source of information, as is every other encyclopedia, almost by definition. Everything is based on other primary sources, which were scrutinised in some other way (editorial review for books, peer-review for scientific articles, experimental verification on data sheets, etc.)

Hence, the aim of a review in Encyclopedia Magnetica is to verify that indeed all the statements are supported by the appropriate references. Such a review is carried out by a person who was not directly involved in authoring the given article. This also helps in reducing any grammar and spelling mistakes made by the original authors.

The reviewers of some articles might be authors of others, and vice versa. In any case, the name of the author(s) and reviewer(s) of each article are given at the top of each page.

All the articles are published immediately, even if they were not reviewed or even completed. Again, this is clearly stated at the top of the page, in the following form:

 awaiting review  

After the review, the given article can be subjected to further edition and expansion. If the edits are minor, so that at no point substantial changes to the meaning were made then no new review will be initiated. Minor changes can include: added or changed image, rewording of a sentence, grammar and spelling corrections, updating references (especially links to websites), deletion of any part of text or images, etc.

On the other hand, if the changes were substantial (e.g. addition of a whole new section) then the article's status will be reverted to “awaiting review”.

At the top of each article, also the current date is given, as well as the date of the review. This allows verification of the version of article (should it change later). At the bottom of each page a following information can be found:

al_value.txt · Last modified: 2014/07/12 21:29 by stan_zurek  

which states when was the last edit made (be it major or very minor).

The number of days between access, review and last edit has absolutely no correlation to the amount of changes in the article. For instance, a well-written and reviewed article might be re-edited months later, because a new photo on the subject became available. Thus the “last edit date” being many months after the “review date” is completely irrelevant.

If the article is marked as “reviewed” then the information can be trusted - it was double-checked by a second person, who verified all the statements and references, e.g.

reviewed by J. Leicht on 2013-01-22  

There is a page grouping all the reviewed articles.

All topics / categories / tags are listed here: List of all tags.

wiki/review_process.txt · Last modified: 2020/07/02 22:39 (external edit)

Privacy and cookie policy (GDPR, etc.)