Editorial Standards

This page defines how Sendebibu develops, reviews, and updates content. Our standards ensure accuracy, transparency, and long-term reliability across all records.

1. Editorial Principles

Evidence first: claims must be grounded in verifiable sources.
Neutrality: entries describe interpretations without advocacy.
Traceability: citations must allow readers to locate source material.
Clarity: writing should remain accessible to non-specialist readers.
Respect: cultural context and community perspectives are represented responsibly.

2. Accuracy Standards

All submissions are assessed for factual precision, chronology, terminology, and internal consistency.

Dates, measurements, and locations must be explicit and sourced.
Specialist terms should be defined on first use where needed.
Uncertain claims must be labeled as probable, disputed, or unverified.

3. Source Requirements

Preferred sources include peer-reviewed publications, institutional reports, excavation records, and archival materials.

Source Type	Acceptability	Notes
Peer-reviewed journal articles	High	Preferred for interpretive and technical claims
Institutional reports	High	Include issuing institution and publication date
Primary archival documents	High	Provide collection, box/folder, and repository details
Personal blogs or unsourced media	Low	Not accepted for factual claims unless independently corroborated

4. Citation Policy

Every non-trivial factual claim should map to a source.
Direct quotations require exact page or section references.
Paraphrased claims must still include clear attribution.
When using datasets, include version/date accessed and persistent identifier if available.

Example: "Lime plaster analysis identified hydraulic components in the north transept mortar (Doe 2018, pp. 44-46)."

5. Neutral Point of View

Editors present significant interpretations proportionately. Minority views may be included when notable and sourced, but they should not be framed as consensus.

6. Historical Uncertainty and Conflicting Interpretations

Uncertain dating should include range and methodology (for example, typological vs radiocarbon).
Conflicting interpretations are summarized with source-based rationale for each view.
Entries should include "current scholarly position" where a broad consensus exists.

Best practice: If evidence is incomplete, state the limits of available data rather than implying certainty.

7. Expert Review Process

Initial editorial screening for scope and completeness.
Technical review by subject editors or external specialists when needed.
Revision cycle with contributor responses and tracked changes.
Final editorial approval and publication.

8. Update Policy, Versioning, and Corrections

Substantive updates are logged with date and editor note.
Minor copy edits may be corrected without full revision notices.
Factual errors are corrected as quickly as possible and marked transparently.

9. Image, Map, Diagram, and Illustration Standards

Images must include creator, source, license, and date where known.
Maps and diagrams must identify projection, scale, and data origin when applicable.
Visuals that alter interpretation (annotations, overlays) must be declared in captions.
Low-resolution or watermarked media may be rejected if it limits scholarly use.

10. AI Usage Policy

AI tools may support drafting, translation assistance, or metadata normalization. AI-generated text, image, or interpretation is not accepted as an authoritative source.

Contributors remain responsible for verification and citation quality.
Any material substantially assisted by AI should be disclosed to editors.
Fabricated references, synthetic citations, or unverifiable claims are grounds for rejection.

11. Writing Style Guide

Use precise, discipline-appropriate terminology.
Prefer short declarative sentences for technical claims.
Avoid promotional or speculative language.
Define abbreviations at first mention.

12. Formatting Conventions

Use clear section headings with logical hierarchy.
Include chronology, location, and material descriptions in consistent order.
Use tables for comparative data and lists for procedures.
Include related links to improve navigability.

13. External References

External links should point to stable, relevant resources. Where possible, include persistent identifiers (DOI, handle, or catalog URI). Broken or outdated links should be reported via Contact.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a page be published with unresolved debates?

Yes, if key interpretations are presented fairly and source support is transparent.

Do all pages require the same level of citation density?

No. Citation depth should match claim complexity and potential controversy.

How quickly are correction requests reviewed?

Editorial triage begins promptly; high-impact factual corrections are prioritized.