====== Editorial guide ====== version: 8.4 updated: 8 April 2026 status: published This guide covers the principles, process, and standards that apply to every topic page. Please read this carefully before making any contributions to the wiki. ===== Main ideas ===== ==== Wiki principles ==== These principles apply to how the wiki is developed and maintained. **Table 1.** Wiki principles ^ Principle ^ What it means in practice ^ | **Transparency** | All contributions, including AI-assisted work, must be documented and attributed. | | **Credibility** | Every factual claim requires a source. Prefer primary sources, such as original papers, official documents, standards. | | **Triangulation** | Every topic is developed from three perspectives (actors, technology, institutions). | | **Scope** | State clearly whether a definition or claim used is applied universally or is distinct to a specific context or discipline. | | **Accessibility** | Write for all Wiki audiences. Define technical terms on first use. | | **Knowledge integration** | Build on ISGAN tacit knowledge and publications as a shared baseline. Connect to broader literature where it expands the ISGAN framing. | | **Critical reflexivity** | Mention many emerging literature that might challenge the current ISGAN framing. | | **Feasible effort** | Quality is an utmost priority. It is better to have a short but relevant definition than a lengthy but rough draft. | | **Referencing** | The wiki combines the use of APA 7th edition for how references are formatted with inline endnotes. Include a DOI or stable URL where available. Verify all sources before submitting. Check markup guide for how to format references so that they appear as endnotes | | **Copyright** | For any image, confirm the license permits its use and include attribution and a source link. | ==== The three perspectives ==== Smart grid transitions cannot be fully understood from any one disciplinary perspective. For instance, while engineering as a field allows to focus on what is technically feasible, institutional analysis highlights how rules and incentives make certain options viable. Further, exploring the perspectives of various actors underlines their distinct visions, needs and practices. Each approach illuminates something the others might miss, and each does not provide a complete outlook on any given topic. One can therefore use triangulation of different perspectives to gain a better outlook on the realities of energy transitions. Triangulation is a method from the social sciences for understanding real-world phenomena by combining multiple theoretical perspectives and methods. The aim is to compensate for the limitations of any single method and to strengthen the credibility of findings through convergence across different approaches. Using multiple perspectives in combination makes it possible to understand phenomena in a more differentiated way: to identify priorities based on a fuller picture, to spot where different framings are compatible and where they conflict, and to develop options that are robust and relevant from different viewpoints. A finding that holds across different perspectives is more credible than one that depends on a single method or theory. {{:0:oscardamen_perspective_overlay_traingulation.png?600|Triangulation diagram}} Every topic is explored from three perspectives. These are not separate sections to fill in independently; they are lenses that together give a fuller picture of how a smart grid concept operates in the real world. Where the perspectives interact, or where one uniquely exposes something the others miss, this should be made explicit in the text. The three perspectives also have some resemblance to how the wiki is structured, but this structuring works somewhat differently. While a topic might belong in the "Technologies & Infrastructure" category because of how it is commonly used, it still benefits from having three different perspectives filled out as other disciplines might have other interpretations. **Actors and stakeholders** This perspective addresses the activities, views, interests and practices of the multiple groups whose actions shape smart grid transitions. Actors such as energy suppliers, producers, aggregators, storage providers, and consumers at the grid edge participate in (regulated and or unregulated) markets for energy and capacity. Transmission and distribution grid operators, balancing parties, and the institutions that regulate them carry mandates to operate and invest in specific parts of the electricity system. National and local policy makers, regulatory bodies, civil society organisations, and citizens shape framework conditions through law-making and political decision making processes. Technology providers and research organisations are part of the innovation ecosystem and play an active role in transitions even when they are not direct market participants. Key disciplines: Energy economics, behavioural economics, organisational studies, business administration. **Technologies and infrastructure** This perspective addresses the technical components, systems, and infrastructures that make up the electricity system, and the ways they can be configured to fulfil system functions. It covers generation, transmission, distribution, and storage as functionalities of a cyber-physical system, i.e. physical infrastructure and the digital layer of data exchange, control systems, and communication protocols. Interoperability standards, data exchange interfaces, metering systems, and control architectures are all within scope of the technology perspective. In smart grid the most consequential transitions are taking place in the cyber-physical realm, beyond hardware. Key disciplines: Electrical engineering, informatics, systems engineering. **Institutional structures** This perspective addresses what governs the electricity system. It includes rules, regulations, norms, and cognitive frameworks that are common to the actors and stakeholders in its operation as well as in its transformation. Markets for power and energy, grid codes, regulatory frameworks for grid operation and balancing, and rules for energy communities and aggregation are all institutional arrangements that define what is possible and what is incentivised. Understanding how open or resistant an institutional structure is to change is as important as understanding the technical options available. Key disciplines: Institutional and evolutionary economics, political science, sociology, law. ===== Process ===== ==== Roles ==== Wiki development is a co-creative process. Every topic has a small team. **Table 2.** Contributor roles and responsibilities. ^ Role ^ Responsibilities ^ | **Lead author** | Oversees the topic from first draft to publication. Organises co-author collaboration, manages review, addresses comments, and takes responsibility for accuracy. | | **Contributor** | Contributes original input based on their expertise, primarily during content creation. May also support later revisions. | | **Reviewer** | Provides at least one round of structured feedback. Critical comments must be addressed before the topic advances. | | **WG7 Task Lead** | Coordinates the overall editorial process, the Quality Review Panel, and publication logistics. | | **Communications Working Group** | Promotional activities and fostering wiki uptake, creating a link to wiki on ISGAN website | | **Quality Review Panel** | Expert reviewers from different countries, with at least one outside the EU. Provides structured feedback during Stage 2. | | **Inter-working group meeting** | Endorses the shared definition. Endorsement is required before a topic is published and again if the shared definition is subsequently changed. | ==== Becoming a lead author ==== Lead authors are the core of the wiki and every topic needs one. Lead authors take responsibility for a topic from first draft to publication: organising input from co-authors, coordinating the review process, addressing comments, and keeping the topic current after it is published. **What is expected:** * Commitment to oversee the topic from the first draft to publication, including addressing reviewer comments and coordinating with the contributors * Subject-matter expertise relevant to the topic, ideally covering more than one of the three ISGAN perspectives (actors, technology, institutions) * Willingness to regularly update the topic based on feedback and new evidence **On diversity:** Topic teams work best when lead authors and contributors bring diverse ISGAN perspectives and regions. If you are taking on a topic, consider who else might contribute from a different disciplinary or geographical angle. **To sign up as lead author:** Contact the WG7 Task Lead or reach out via the [[about:contact|contact page]]. If a topic already has a lead author listed on its page, contact them directly to discuss collaboration. **To propose a new topic:** See the [[about:newtopic|New topic]] guide. ==== Editorial process ==== The process has three stages and three decision gates. Gate 1 is a lead author self-check before external review begins. Gate 2 is the substantive quality threshold before endorsement. The inter-working group meeting endorses the shared definition only. All other content (perspectives, case studies, examples, references, distinctions) can be edited after publication without a new endorsement. A new inter-WG meeting is required only if the topic definition or specific shared definitions are altered. ^ Stage / Gate ^ What happens ^ Duration ^ Status ^ | **Stage 1: Content creation** | The lead author collects input from co-authors and produces a first draft using the topic template. | 2–6 weeks | ''draft'' | | **Gate 1** | The lead author checks that the draft is ready for external review: the template is complete, every factual claim has a source, and all contributors are attributed. | 1 day | — | | **Stage 2: Review** | Expert reviewers provide written feedback. The text is revised for accuracy, readability, and style. Critical comments must be addressed before the topic can advance. | 4–8 weeks | ''in-review'' | | **Gate 2** | Review is complete. All critical comments have been resolved, the shared definition is stable, and the topic is ready for endorsement. | — | — | | **Stage 3: Awaiting endorsement** | The lead author submits the topic to the inter-WG meeting agenda. Language is reviewed and finalised before submission. The draft may go live on the wiki while endorsement is pending. | Aligned to WG schedule | ''under-approval'' | | **Gate 3** | The inter-WG meeting reviews and endorses the shared definition. | — | — | | **Publication** | The topic goes live on the wiki. A two-week community review window opens, during which the lead author addresses any substantive concerns raised. | 2–3 weeks | ''published'' | **Gate 1 checklist** Completed by the lead author before sharing the draft externally. No external sign-off required. * ☐ The topic template is used, including the shared definition, three perspective subsections, and compliance with the word limits. * ☐ Every factual claim has a source. Geographical scope is stated. Technical terms are defined on first use. * ☐ Lead author and all co-authors are attributed in the metadata block. Milestone 1: Draft is ready for external review. **Gate 2 checklist** Confirmed by the lead author and WG7 Task Lead before the topic moves to Stage 3. Any comment marked critical must be addressed before the topic proceeds. If the lead author disagrees with a critical comment, the reasoning must be documented and the reviewer informed. * ☐ At least three expert reviewers from at least three different countries have provided written feedback, with at least one reviewer from outside the EU. * ☐ All critical comments have been addressed. Any disputed critical comment has been documented in writing and the reviewer informed. * ☐ All sources have been verified: every cited document exists at the given URL, titles and authors are correct, and the cited content matches the claim in the text. References are complete and formatted in APA 7th edition. * ☐ The distinctions and overlaps section addresses confusions that readers of this topic actually encounter. * ☐ The shared definition is stable and ready for inter-WG endorsement. Milestone 2: Topic is ready for endorsement. **Gate 3 checklist** Confirmed by the lead author before submitting to the inter-WG meeting. * ☐ The shared definition has not changed since Gate 2. If it has changed, the topic returns to Stage 1. * ☐ No critical issues remain unresolved from Gate 2. * ☐ Language has been reviewed and finalised by the lead author. * ☐ Topic has been submitted to the inter-WG meeting agenda. Milestone 3: Topic is ready for publication. ==== Topic status ==== Each topic carries a status visible on the start page and on the topic page. The lead author is responsible for keeping it current. Only topics with status ''published'', ''under-approval'', ''in-review'', or ''draft'' are counted as active topics. **Table 6.** Topic status values, transitions, and gate anchors. ^ Status ^ Meaning ^ Enters when ^ Exits when ^ | **Published** | Live and publicly visible. | Stage 4 upload is complete. | A major revision begins, returning the topic to ''draft''. | | **Under approval** | Quality review is complete; the topic is awaiting endorsement at an inter-WG meeting. | Gate 2 is passed. | The shared definition is endorsed at an inter-WG meeting. | | **In review** | Under editorial revision and quality panel review. Expert input is especially valuable at this stage. | Gate 1 is passed. | Gate 2 is passed. | | **Draft** | Actively being written or undergoing major revision. | Work begins, or a major version bump is made. | Gate 1 is passed. | | **Planned** | Content exists from an earlier wiki version but has not been updated to the current template and standards. | Old content is confirmed to exist. | Restructuring begins, moving the topic to ''draft''. | | **Backlog** | Topic identified; nothing written yet. | The topic is added to the registry. | Work begins, moving the topic to ''draft''. | ==== Versioning ==== Every topic page carries a version number. The version and status move together at defined triggers. **Table 4.** Version change triggers and their process effects. ^ Event ^ Version ^ Status ^ Process ^ | First publication | → 1.0 | → ''published'' | The topic completes Stage 4 and goes live. | | Minor revision | e.g. 1.0 → 1.1 | Unchanged | No process steps required. Can be made at any status. | | Major revision | e.g. 1.0 → 2.0 | → ''draft'' | The topic returns to Stage 1. A new inter-WG endorsement is required before republication. | * **Major version** (e.g., 1.0 to 2.0): A change to the shared definition or core framing of the page. Requires returning to Stage 1 and a new inter-WG endorsement. * **Minor version** (e.g., 1.0 to 1.1): An editorial improvement, updated case, added reference, or corrected phrasing. Can be made at any status without restarting the process. Once a shared definition is endorsed, only the definition is locked. The rest of the page remains open to improvement as minor revisions at any time. If contributors believe the definition needs changing, that triggers a major revision and a new endorsement cycle. Start at version 1.0 on first publication. Update the version number and the updated date in the page metadata on every change. Use the optional topic notes section to record what changed between versions. ==== Sensitivity rating ==== Topics may be assigned sensitivity ratings, however how they should function is still to be decided. At the moment no sensitivity ratings are assigned. ==== Comment system ==== Every topic page allows for comments from lead authors, contributors and reviewers within the main body of the text. **How it works:** Select any passage of text on a topic page and a comment button appears. Click it to open a compose panel. Your comment is anchored to the selected passage and visible to other logged-in users via highlight markers in the text. Comments can be replied to, resolved, and closed by the lead author or an admin. The toggle button near the top of each topic page switches comment markers on and off. This does not delete comments but only hides the highlights for a cleaner reading view. **Who can comment:** Any logged-in wiki user once editor rights are granted. Comments are not visible to anonymous readers. **Who can resolve comments:** The lead author and wiki admins. Resolving a comment marks it as addressed; it remains in the record but is no longer shown as open. **Examples of instances for using comments:** * Flag a specific claim that needs a source or stronger evidence * Note a definition that may conflict with another topic * Suggest a phrasing change * Mark a passage for follow-up after a meeting ===== Writing guidelines ===== ==== Language, tone and voice ==== Topics should read as though written by a knowledgeable colleague explaining something clearly. It should be direct and precise, with focus on building shared understanding. **Language rules:** * Use UK English spelling throughout. * Use plain language. If a technical term is necessary, define it on first use. * Prefer active constructions: "Several countries have introduced regulatory sandboxes" rather than "Regulatory sandboxes have been established." * Prefer can and could over should when describing possibilities. The wiki describes what is done and what options exist. It does not prescribe what countries ought to do. * Avoid hollow evaluative phrases: "a fundamental shift", "a critical enabler", "plays an increasingly important role." State what changed and why it matters. * Avoid generic prose markers: "It is important to note that", "This section explores", "Moreover", "Furthermore." * Avoid unnecessary introductions: "In an era of increasing complexity", "Given the rapidly evolving landscape." * Vary sentence length for readability and flow; avoid overly long sentences. * All section headings use sentence case. Write "Why this matters", not "Why This Matters". ==== Topic page structure ==== Every topic page follows the same structure. Sections must appear in this order. **Table 5.** Required sections for every topic page, in order. ^ # ^ Section ^ Purpose ^ Word count ^ | 1 | Category badge | Identifies which of the five categories this topic belongs to. | — | | 2 | Title | The topic name. | — | | 3 | Metadata block | Records lead authors, contributors, reviewers, version, date, sensitivity, status, and AI use. Drives the status display and author attribution on the start page. | — | | 4 | Intro panel | One paragraph defining the topic and situating it in smart grid transitions. Every sentence must be specific to this topic. | 80–120 words | | 4b | Insight block | A single plain-text sentence, 120–160 characters, no links or markup. Not visible on the topic page; feeds the topic card on the start page. For backlog and planned topics, leave the block structurally present but empty. | 120–160 characters | | 5 | Why this matters | One to two paragraphs and one callout box explaining why the topic matters for smart grid transitions. | 150–250 words | | 6 | Shared definitions | The working definition, with an optional table for multi-dimensional concepts. | 80–150 words | | 7 | Perspectives | Three subsections (Actors and stakeholders, Technologies and infrastructure, Institutional structures), each with one paragraph and one to three case examples. | 120–200 words per subsection | | 8 | Distinctions and overlaps | Two to five entries clarifying what this topic is not, and where it borders adjacent concepts. | 30–60 words per entry | | 9 | Related topics | Direct links to other topic pages using ''%%[[topics:slug|Title]]%%'' format. 3–7 links, substantive connections only. Not tags. | — | | 10 | References | Auto-generated from inline DokuWiki footnotes placed throughout body text. No section heading required. | — | | 11 | Topic notes | Editorial working notes, gap log, AI attribution, and verification record. Not published on the live wiki. | — | For markup syntax and code examples for each section, see the [[about:markup|Wiki markup]] reference. ==== AI use ==== AI tools may be used in wiki development when helpful, but their use is not required or expected. Where AI is used, it can help reorganise source material into the template structure, improve sentence flow, reformat references, or convert approved documents into DokuWiki markup. Three responsibilities remain with people regardless of AI assistance: - **Source verification** is mandatory and must be done by a person. The lead author is responsible for confirming that every cited source exists and that the content matches the claim in the text. - **Editorial responsibility** stays with the lead author. Co-authors and reviewers who become aware that AI has substantially altered text must inform the lead author so the attribution record is accurate. - **Recording AI use** is required. All AI-assisted work is documented in the Topic notes section. These records stay in the document and the Teams folder; they are not published on the live wiki. **AI use record format** Stage: [content creation / editorial revision / wiki upload] · Type: [structuring / drafting / editorial revision / reference formatting / markup conversion] · Tool: [e.g. Claude (Anthropic)] · Reviewed by: [Name, Date] Example: Content creation · Drafting · Claude Sonnet 4 (Anthropic) · Reviewed by: Firstname Lastname, 17 May 2025. ===== Version history =====
Version 8.3 — 20 April 2026 Restructured into four parts; topic structure table updated

Guide restructured into four parts: Main ideas, Process, Writing guidelines, and Version history. Wiki principles and The three perspectives moved to lead the document. Language, tone and voice, Topic page structure, and AI use consolidated into Writing guidelines. Topic page structure table updated: word counts added for all substantive sections, References description corrected to reflect inline footnote behaviour, Insight block note added for backlog and planned topics, Related topics link-count constraint (3–7) added. Markup reference link relocated from intro to end of Topic page structure section.

Version 8.2 — 8 April 2026 Approval distinctions and version record added

Distinctions between topic approval and further updates were added. Complete version history section now appears at the end of the document. Minor refinements were also made in tone and style

Version 7 — 17 March 2026 Expanded tone and voice and clarified terminology

Critical reflexivity returned as a listed principle, and the idea of knowledge integration was broadened to include tacit knowledge shared across teams. Sections on tone and voice were expanded, giving more detail on writing style. The procedure for addressing reviewer comments at Gate 2 was clarified. Updated terminology from "page owner" to "lead author"

Version 6 — 17 March 2026 Expanded content, AI guidance, sensitivity, audience details

This version introduced several new sections. The three perspectives gained fuller descriptions, now covering their scope and main disciplines. Guidance on the appropriate use of AI tools was added with a consistent record format. A draft sensitivity rating system (three levels) appeared for the first time but was put to the side for further consideration. Audience descriptions were expanded to include policy makers, ISGAN experts, and researchers. The publication review period was also established here, along with updated Gate 1 and Gate 2 checklists with more clear review requirements and source verification steps.

Version 5 — 17 May 2025 Minor edits to principles and review rules

The update clarified the principles and refined quality review requirements. Gate 2 now explicitly calls for feedback from at least two national experts, in addition to the ExCo panel. Stage descriptions were also revised for consistency.

Version 4 — August 2024 Named principles, role table, publication stage, revision levels

A major structural overhaul replaced the older numbered rules with ten named principles, such as Critical reflexivity and Feasible effort. A clear roles table was introduced, showing how wiki-wide responsibilities differ from topic-level tasks. Stage 4, covering publication and outreach, was added. This version also introduced the concept of major versus minor revisions, with guidance on how each affects the review stages.

Version 3 — August 2024 Purpose and audience, reorganized rules, tone section, AI note

The guide opened with a new purpose and audience section. The nine rules were reorganized under ten thematic headings, setting the stage for the later named-principles format. A short note was added on AI references, and a section on tone and voice appeared for the first time. A screenshot showing Teams registration was also included.

Version 2 — July 2024 Refined text and updated title

The text was lightly refined throughout, and the document's title was updated to "ISGAN Smart Grids Transitions Wiki — Editorial Guide."

Version 1 — February 2024 Initial draft

This first full draft, prepared during the initial wiki setup, introduced the stage-gate workflow and the original nine rules. It also offered technical guidance for logging in, adding pages, and managing changes. The three core perspectives on Institutions, Actors and Stakeholders, and Technology were taken up.

~~DISCUSSION~~ ~~NOCACHE~~