ACM SIGDOC Structured Authoring Committee Resources

Industry authors can work in any source format that is comfortable for them. By default, many authors work in gDoc or MS Word formats because it is easy to move that content into gDoc format for review. Authors are responsible for the following:

• Review the style/editorial guidelines.

• Draft your resource.

  Tip: If you are drafting your resource in gDoc format, feel free to author it in our gDrive folder named Folder - DRAFT - Resources.

• When you are ready to begin the review process, move or copy/paste your resource content into a gDoc in the gDrive folder named Folder - REVIEW - Resources.

• Notify the Chair and contact TBD/Editor to schedule reviewers and milestones.

• Work through the review process.

• When reviews are complete, notify the Chair and move your completed gDoc to Folder - POSTED - Resources

  The Infrastructure team will handle posting to our web site and creating parallel formats for you.

Our committee produces resources about structured content for curriculum instructors, researchers, and students. Unlike traditional industry publications, our resources are open source and intended to be modified by individual instructors before integration with their curriculum materials. Achieving 100% editorial or formatting consistency across our resources is not a goal.

The benefit of having an editorial pass through new resources is one of internal efficiency. Once the author and editor agree that the new resource conforms to our no-frills, baseline style guide, subsequent technical and instructional reviewers should disregard editorial issues to focus on technical and instructional issues respectively.

• When contacted by the author or Chair, negotiate milestones for the editorial review.

• Collaborate with the author toward the completion of the editorial review.

• When the editorial review is complete, confirm status with the author and notify the Chair to recruit subsequent technical and instructional reviewers.

• Update the no-frills style guide as appropriate.

Technical reviewers are industry folks who are familiar with both the technology and its deployment relevant to a particular resource. Technical reviewers engage after the editorial review and before the instructional review. Technical reviewers identify any technical errors or ambiguities in the resource being reviewed and (within reason) suggest items worth adding to the resource. Removing content or completely reorganizing content is not a goal. If an instructor does not believe that a section is not relevant to her/his class, the instructor can remove it.

• When contacted by Chair, negotiate milestones for completing the technical review.

• Collaborate with the author toward the completion of the technical review.

• When the technical review is complete, confirm status with the author and notify the Chair to recruit subsequent reviewers.

Instructional reviewers are college instructors or program administrators who have experience with or interest in structured content. The instructions review happens after the editorial and technical reviews. The instructional review is intended to identify sections of a resource that require additional explanation or exemplification. Removing content or completely reorganizing content is not a goal. If an instructor does not believe that a section is not relevant to her/his class, the instructor can remove it.

• When contacted by Chair, negotiate milestones for completing the instructional review.

• Collaborate with the author toward the completion of the instructional review.

• When the instructional review is complete, confirm status with the author and notify the Chair to move the resource from REVIEW to POSTED status.

• Share with authors, editors, and technical reviewers any best practices that would enhance the relevance of our resources.