Ruby-Doc Learn is accountable for identifying individuals who contribute to its content. This section provides information regarding expectations related to the role of authors and technical reviewers.
The Responsibility of Authors
Each named author must have made a genuine and substantive contribution to the article.
Generally speaking, authorship entails developing the article’s argument/explanation, providing examples in the article, composing or significantly editing the written text, and being ultimately responsible for the completed version of the article.
We do not assign a well-known person’s name to material simply to make it appear more authoritative. When several people collaborate, the byline or contributor note should explain their roles accurately.
Author Profiles
In addition to providing sufficient context for readers to understand the relevant background of the author(s) based on the subject matter at hand; author profiles may include:
- Programmer-specific experiences
- Technical specialties
- Contributions to open source software
- Published works
- Work history/Professional roles
- Projects of relevance
- Personal website addresses/publicly accessible profile sites
All claims included in the biography must be verifiable independently.
Responsibilities of Authors
As such, authors are expected to:
- Produce original work
- Verify key factual claims
- Wherever possible test code examples
- Only cite reliable sources
- Provide specific software versions used.
- Discuss important limitations
- Disclose all potential conflicts of interest
- Respond to legitimate errors pointed out to them
- Refrain from using undisclosed promotional language or links
Additionally, authors must differentiate between the use of personal experience or opinion and established technical facts.
Responsibilities of Technical Reviewers
Technical reviewers are tasked with determining if an article’s explanations, code and conclusions are reasonable and accurate within the specified scope. A technical reviewer may check whether:
- Code samples run correctly/or can be inspected
- Software versions identified in the article are compatible
- Commands entered by authors produce the expected output
- Technical terms used in the article are correct
- Claims presented in the article are supported by primary resources
- Important limitations/security concerns were omitted from discussion
While being recognized as a reviewer indicates that the person conducted a valid review, recognition does not imply that the reviewer agrees with all preferences/options held by the author.
Correction and Continued Responsibility
Both authors/reviewers must collaborate with reasonable correction requests. In cases where software updates render an article outdated, Ruby-Doc Learn may update the article, post a warning, request additional reviews or discontinue access to the article.
Where appropriate, the publication date and date of the most recent substantive update should be displayed.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors and reviewers must disclose relationships that could reasonably affect their judgement. These may include employment, investments, sponsorship, affiliate arrangements, free products or services, and paid consulting relationships.
A disclosed conflict does not automatically prevent publication, but it must not be concealed from readers.
Concerns about an author, reviewer or biographical claim can be reported to contact@ruby-doc.org.
Last updated: 3 September 2026