Editorial Policy

1. Sourcing

Entries are drawn from (a) Discussion Publishers’ in-house corpora, (b) public-domain reference works, and (c) vetted community contributions. Every entry carries a visible source attribution on its page.

2. Review workflow

• Draft — author submits an entry; not visible publicly.
• Review — flagged for editorial inspection; visible only to editors.
• Approved — published to the public dictionary.
• Rejected — does not meet our quality bar; the author receives a reason.

3. Quality criteria

An entry must include a normalised headword, a part of speech, at least one clear definition, and (where relevant) an illustrative example. Definitions must be neutral, attestable, and free of personal opinion.

4. PDF ingestion

Bulk imports from authoritative PDFs are parsed automatically, queued as pending import entries, and individually reviewed by an editor before promotion to public, approved entries. Nothing imported is auto-published.

5. Corrections

To report an error, use the “Contribute” page or email editorial@discussionpublishers.example. Verified corrections are usually applied within one editorial cycle.

6. Conflicts of interest

Editors disclose any commercial interest in subject matter they review. Decisions are documented in the editorial workspace audit log.

7. Removal & appeals

Any published entry can be challenged. Appeals are reviewed by a second editor not involved in the original decision.