Editorial review
How editors check scope, clarity, policy, and route proposals to the right track.
Editorial review checks scope, clarity, and policy, and routes each proposal to the right track. Editors triage submissions, request sources or changes, and record a reason for every decision. Editorial notes never assert science.
Contribution types on this track
Improve the provenance record of an entity, relationship, or image.
Improves: Source coverage, Review coverage
Correct or add an event on a sourced timeline.
Improves: Historical accuracy
Report a completeness or correctness issue with a published dataset.
Improves: Dataset completeness
Report an issue with an Open Data API endpoint or its documentation.
Improves: —
An editor's note on an entity, relationship, image, dataset, or timeline.
Improves: Review coverage
Security & abuse model
Controls a future review system applies at each stage. Designed, not implemented — there is no rate limiter or spam filter today.
submission
Structural checks and (future) human triage keep low-effort or automated noise out of the review queue.
Submission rate limits (per contributor and per institution) protect the queue. Designed, not enforced today.
Observatories, universities, and agencies are verified before receiving the Institutional Partner role.
triage
Overlapping edits to the same object are surfaced before either is accepted.
Open proposals targeting the same object with the same change are merged or superseded, not double-applied.
review
Sources must come from the authoritative registry or a proposed source a Source Reviewer verifies.
Every image and dataset contribution is checked for a compatible, declared license before acceptance.
No contribution is ever auto-applied; an editor and, where required, a scientific reviewer must approve it.
Sourced factual claims in the science domain must pass scientific review by a domain expert.
acceptance
Ready to draft one? Copy a proposal template.