The review process is entirely conduced on GitHub using Pull Requests (PR):
https://github.com/scientific-python/blog.scientific-python.org/pulls
It is a transparent process and anyone can participate in the evaluation new content. At anytime, our code of conduct must be observed by all parties.
We distinguish contributors with 3 roles:
- Anyone: not a specific role. Anyone is welcome to review any content.
- Reviewers: trusted reviewers. They triage content and are responsible for reviewing the content. (They cannot merge PR.)
- Editors: are responsible for publishing the content. (They can merge PR.)
Contributors are promoted from one status to the other at the discretion of the editorial board. For more information, see our governance and decision making process.
The content must follow our scope. As we thrive for quality posts, some submissions will not meet the bar. Please try to give clear feedback on how authors could revise their submission. It should also be clear if a submission would not be accepted.
The review timeline is the following:
- Authors are making a Pull Request (PR).
- A reviewer triages the PR. A PR cannot be closed without justification.
- Anyone review the PR.
- Once the review is done and a reviewer approves the PR, editors make a final pass.
- After an editor approval, the PR can be scheduled for publication.