Editorial Standards

ExplaneIt is a health and wellness education publication for general readers. Its purpose is to explain everyday questions about food, nutrition, recipes, herbs, supplements, digestion, sleep, hydration, movement, mental health, adult sexual wellbeing, and health terminology in language people can understand. An article should help a reader ask better questions and recognize the limits of a claim, not make a personal diagnosis or sell certainty where the evidence is uncertain.

These standards describe the requirements for selecting, preparing, reviewing, publishing, and maintaining content. ExplaneIt is not a medical practice, a substitute for clinical care, or a peer-reviewed research journal. A paper cited in an article may have undergone journal peer review; that does not mean the ExplaneIt article has undergone the same process. The two forms of review must never be presented as interchangeable.

An explanation of a condition, test, ingredient, or study cannot account for an individual reader's medical history, examination, medicines, allergies, pregnancy, age, or current symptoms. Articles must not turn a general observation into a personal instruction to start, stop, substitute, or adjust treatment. Readers should consult a qualified health professional before acting on health suggestions or making changes to their care.

A disclaimer is necessary, but it does not make an unsafe article acceptable. The substance of the article must also remain within its educational purpose. If an article discusses concerning symptoms, it should not encourage readers to postpone assessment while trying a recipe, supplement, device, or home remedy. Persistent symptoms, severe symptoms, and urgent care decisions belong with appropriate professional services, not an online article or comment.

Each article needs a clear question and a useful answer. The question may concern what a term means, how to compare labels, what a study tested, how an ingredient is used in food, or what information to bring to a professional appointment. Content should include enough context to prevent a reader from mistaking a narrow finding for a broad recommendation.

A popular search phrase can identify a reader's concern, but it does not establish that the phrase is medically accurate. A topic such as natural antibiotics should examine the claim and its evidence rather than repeat it as an established fact. Search demand, social popularity, publication targets, and potential revenue are not reasons to publish an unsupported health claim.

Medical efficacy and safety claims require relevant evidence from identifiable peer-reviewed medical or biomedical journals. References should identify the paper and journal, provide a usable link, and make clear what kind of evidence is being cited. Clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, controlled trials, observational studies, and laboratory research answer different questions; their conclusions should not be treated as equally strong or equally applicable.

A paper's presence in PubMed or a full-text archive is not, by itself, proof that it is peer-reviewed, methodologically reliable, current, or relevant to the article. Editors need to check the publication type, journal identity, population, methods, actual findings, limitations, corrections, and any retraction notices. A preprint, conference abstract, opinion piece, or company press release must not be presented as established clinical evidence.

Government health agencies, recognized professional organizations, and established public medical resources can help explain terminology, preparation instructions, regulations, food safety, and patient-facing context. Their role should be clear. An agency's general information page does not replace a relevant journal citation for a specific claim that a treatment or supplement improves a clinical outcome.

Every reference must support the claim for which it is used. Linking to a respected organization is not enough if the linked page never addresses the statement. Editors should follow the reference to its original source where possible and avoid chains of articles that cite one another without identifying the underlying research. Broken links, unrelated references, and impressive-looking citations with mismatched titles need correction.

A laboratory experiment can explain a possible mechanism or show an effect under controlled conditions. An animal experiment can inform further research. Neither demonstrates that a household preparation will safely produce the same effect in a person. An observational association can identify a pattern, but other differences between participants may explain some or all of that pattern.

A randomized trial can provide stronger evidence for a specific intervention, yet its size, comparison group, duration, participant selection, and outcome measures still matter. A systematic review is only as useful as its search methods and included studies. Articles should distinguish a promising hypothesis, a measured effect, a statistically significant result, and a benefit that meaningfully affects patients.

The people and products in a study must match the claim made in an article. Research involving adults cannot automatically establish safety in children. Findings in healthy volunteers may not apply to people with chronic illness. Results for one condition do not establish benefits for a different condition, even when both involve the same organ or symptom.

Preparation matters just as much. A standardized extract, isolated compound, capsule, topical preparation, essential oil, food ingredient, and homemade tea are not interchangeable. Editors should identify the preparation actually studied and avoid implying that clove water, a kitchen spice, or an ordinary drink reproduces a result obtained with a concentrated laboratory extract. A shared ingredient name is not evidence of equivalent exposure, benefit, or safety.

Articles should explain material limitations alongside findings, not bury them beneath an enthusiastic headline. Small samples, short follow-up, missing comparison groups, inconsistent results, subjective outcomes, and conflicts of interest can affect how much confidence a conclusion deserves. A study with a positive result does not eliminate the need to consider other relevant research.

Language should match the evidence. May, appears, is associated with, and remains uncertain have different meanings from prevents, treats, and cures. Lack of good evidence is not proof that an intervention can never work, but it is a reason not to promise a benefit. When evidence is mixed or insufficient, the article should say so plainly without filling the gap with testimonials or speculation.

Editorial review examines the article's question, factual statements, sources, structure, terminology, completeness, search copy, and safety wording. It should also check whether the article belongs in the section where it will appear. A draft is not ready merely because it has a title, a source list, a disclaimer, or a sufficient word count.

For moderate-risk educational topics, evidence and safety review must check how readers might interpret the article, especially where a general explanation could be mistaken for a personal recommendation. Approval should concern a specific version of the content. If its claims, references, risk level, or safety advice change materially, the earlier approval should not be treated as automatic approval of the new version.

Higher-risk guidance requires review by a qualified professional with expertise appropriate to the subject. This includes content that directs diagnostic or treatment decisions, medication changes, management of suspected infections, or care for medically vulnerable groups. General descriptions of terminology or the purpose of a test must remain educational and must not drift into individualized interpretation or treatment instructions.

A medical reviewer must be a real person whose qualifications can be represented accurately. A staff author, a source-checking process, or a journal reference is not a substitute for that person. ExplaneIt must not display a medically reviewed claim unless the article has actually received the relevant qualified review and the reviewer and review date are recorded. Medical review reduces risk; it does not guarantee that an article is suitable for every reader.

Natural describes an origin, not a guarantee of safety or effectiveness. Articles about traditional remedies should distinguish a history of use from clinical evidence. A plant may contain biologically active compounds without a homemade preparation being an effective treatment. The word antibacterial in a laboratory paper must not be turned into a recommendation to replace an antibiotic prescribed for a person.

Content should distinguish ordinary culinary use from concentrated oils, extracts, tinctures, and supplements. It must not supply improvised treatment doses or encourage readers to apply concentrated products to sensitive tissues. Claims about infections, blood glucose, pregnancy, children, medication interactions, or serious symptoms require particular care. If there is no reliable human evidence for the preparation being discussed, that limitation belongs in the main explanation.

Nutrition coverage should describe patterns and practical choices without assigning moral value to food or promising that a single ingredient will cure disease. Restrictive diets can have consequences, and recommendations for a medical condition are different from general meal ideas. An article must not present a recipe as a replacement for prescribed nutrition care or imply it is appropriate for every allergy, illness, or life stage.

Recipes need clear ingredients, quantities, preparation steps, and relevant storage or food-safety information. Allergen considerations should be visible where appropriate. Any nutrition estimate must be identified as an estimate and must have an explainable calculation method; precise-looking figures should not be invented. A recipe may be inspired by research on an eating pattern without itself having been tested as a clinical intervention.

Product names, packaging, certifications, ingredient quantities, and claims should be checked against the actual product information. A label can establish what a manufacturer declares, but it does not independently demonstrate efficacy. An ingredient study does not automatically validate a multi-ingredient formula, a different dose, or a product with a different delivery method.

Articles should not diagnose a deficiency from common symptoms or steer every reader toward a purchase. When a product is discussed, its limitations and relevant professional-advice needs must remain visible. Recommendations must not imply that higher concentrations, larger serving sizes, expensive branding, or a natural label make a product safer or more effective. A non-purchase option should remain a legitimate outcome of reading the article.

Bylines should identify the person or editorial organization responsible for an article without inventing a medical credential, specialty, professional affiliation, or lived experience. An editorial team byline should be presented as an editorial organization, not as a named clinician. Author biographies should describe actual roles and qualifications in straightforward language.

Claims of testing a product, interviewing an expert, cooking a recipe, conducting original research, or receiving medical review require a real basis. Where an article summarizes published evidence, it should say what the evidence concerns rather than imply the publication performed the study itself. Fictional examples can help explain a concept, but they must be recognizable as examples and must not be presented as patient outcomes.

Articles should be original explanations rather than copied journal text, lightly rewritten publisher summaries, or collections of quotations. Sources provide evidence; they do not remove the need to explain the topic in a coherent voice. Any short quotation should be accurate, attributed, and necessary. Images and other material also require an appropriate right to use them.

Changing a headline or rearranging a few paragraphs does not create a useful new article. Closely overlapping pieces should be combined, differentiated by a genuinely different reader question, or kept unpublished. An article's length should reflect the explanation it needs. Repeated disclaimers, unrelated sections, and redundant phrases should not be used to inflate the apparent depth of a page.

The headline, search description, image caption, newsletter subject, and social preview must match the article's actual conclusions. If evidence is preliminary or limited to a laboratory setting, the promotional wording must not turn it into a proven health benefit. A qualification hidden deep in an article does not repair a misleading promise in its title.

Search optimization should make useful content easier to find, with descriptive titles, readable headings, accurate summaries, and relevant internal links. It must not involve fabricated expertise, keyword repetition, misleading structured data, unnecessary duplicate pages, or false claims of freshness. Social previews should retain essential safety context and should not use fear or urgency to pressure people into reading, subscribing, or buying.

An article's primary section should reflect the main question it answers. A complete recipe belongs with recipes; an ingredient or botanical profile belongs with herbs, teas, and spices; general digestion education belongs with gut health; and explanations of tests or medical terms belong with health explained. A supplement-label comparison is different from a culinary ingredient guide, even when both mention the same nutrient.

Related reading should help readers explore a question from another useful angle, rather than repeat the same explanation in several sections. A clear section structure should distinguish a recipe from an ingredient profile, a general wellness idea from a medical explanation, and product information from evidence of a benefit. Relevance and the quality of the explanation matter more than the number of articles available in a section.

Mental health articles must distinguish ordinary experiences, symptom descriptions, screening tools, and clinical diagnoses. A questionnaire score, familiar social-media story, or isolated behavior cannot establish a disorder. Coverage should avoid stereotypes, stigmatizing labels, unsupported biological explanations, and promises that a habit or product will cure distress. Population averages must not become judgments about an individual's effort, character, or prospects for recovery.

Research summaries should identify the population, intervention or exposure, comparison, outcome, and meaningful limitations. Findings about students, older adults, caregivers, or a diagnosed clinical population cannot automatically be transferred to everyone. Medication changes, crisis assessment, clinical treatment selection, perinatal concerns, and other higher-risk guidance require suitable qualified review before publication. Articles must not present the publication or its social accounts as emergency or therapeutic services. Immediate safety concerns belong with appropriate local emergency assistance, not an article or an awaited social response.

Sexual wellbeing coverage is non-graphic adult health education. It should be respectful of different identities, bodies, abilities, relationship structures, and choices, including choosing no sexual activity. Consent, comfort, privacy, and freedom from coercion remain central. Frequency, appearance, desire, physical arousal, distress, and clinical function are different concepts; none should be used as a measure of personal worth or as permission to disregard another person's boundary. An involuntary bodily response is not consent.

Articles should explain research without prescribing sexual activity, improvised remedies, unverified enhancement products, or self-directed treatment. Persistent pain, unexplained symptoms, and possible recent exposures need appropriate professional attention. Clinical testing decisions, medicine or hormone regimens, postoperative care, and other higher-risk guidance require qualified review. Sources must match the actual population and preparation studied; a small product trial or a short-term questionnaire change cannot establish universal benefit or long-term safety. Research and general education must also be distinguished from current local recommendations and individual legal advice.

Commercial relationships must not determine an article's conclusions, its treatment of uncertainty, or its safety advice. If a link can earn a commission, that relationship must be disclosed clearly beside the relevant recommendation, before a reader acts on it. Compensation, free products, sponsorships, or other material connections must not be hidden behind vague wording or a general footer notice.

Paid placements must be recognizable as paid placements and separated from editorial content. They must not imitate a clinician's recommendation or interrupt a warning, source list, or essential explanation. Financial support does not justify unsupported health claims, invented product experience, or a ranking presented as evidence. These standards apply to the article and to any associated newsletter or social post.

Health topics can be personal even when a reader does not disclose a diagnosis. Content should not shame readers, assume a health condition from their interests, or encourage unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information. Examples should avoid identifiable patient details unless there is a legitimate basis and appropriate permission to use them.

Newsletter participation is optional and separate from reading public articles. A request for an email address must not be presented as clinical intake, medical monitoring, or a requirement to receive treatment advice. Product promotions and subscriptions should not exploit a reader's worry about symptoms. Information about site data handling and reader choices belongs in the privacy policy.

A substantive error concerns a claim, source, quantity, safety statement, or conclusion that could change a reader's understanding or actions. Such errors need prompt evaluation and correction. If a claim cannot be supported or a safety concern cannot be resolved, removing or withholding the affected content is preferable to leaving a misleading statement available.

Material corrections should be documented, with enough information to distinguish a factual change from routine formatting or grammar edits. A published article should not quietly acquire a stronger medical claim without appropriate review. When a correction materially changes the explanation, readers should be able to understand what changed and why, rather than assume that the earlier wording remains the publication's position.

Health evidence can change through new trials, updated guidelines, safety notices, corrections, and retractions. Publication dates indicate when an article first became available; update dates indicate changes; review dates should reflect actual review work. Dates must not be advanced simply to make an unchanged article look current.

Routine review timing depends on risk: lower-risk material is generally scheduled at 24 months, moderate-risk material at 12 months, and higher-risk material at six months. A significant new safety concern or a withdrawn source can require earlier attention. Scheduled dates are review targets, not guarantees that every source remains correct until the next date. Older references may remain useful for established definitions, but they must not be presented as current treatment guidance when newer guidance supersedes them.

Publication means an article has been made available under the applicable editorial process. It does not mean that every recommendation fits every reader, that research has eliminated uncertainty, or that a health outcome is guaranteed. Even a carefully sourced and professionally reviewed article cannot replace a clinician's assessment of a particular person.

Readers should be able to identify what was studied, what remains uncertain, which sources support the explanation, and when professional input is needed. Those are the measures of a useful health article. Article volume, commercial performance, and an attractive presentation are secondary to accuracy, appropriate limits, and avoiding preventable harm.