Field guide standards Editorial policy
Every public page should help a reader understand both what is known and where the evidence stops. The editorial standard favours clear attribution, restrained wording, and correction over certainty theatre.
Content must not provide personalised dosing, treatment plans, administration instructions, product sourcing, or claims that experimental or preclinical findings prove a human outcome. The platform keeps research discussion separate from personal clinical decisions.
When a factual error, outdated reference, or unclear framing is identified, the intended response is to check the primary source, correct the guide record, and retain a current review marker. A public corrections log can be added when an editorial contact channel and review workflow are formally established.
AI may assist with drafting structure, search organisation, or repetitive editorial workflow only under human review. It must not invent studies, authors, trial results, DOI numbers, regulatory approvals, or patient-specific advice. A future research assistant must cite curated source records and explain uncertainty.
Continue reading Standards and sources