EDITORIAL STANDARDS
Clear about the research. Open about how we work.
The Researcher is built on a straightforward responsibility: help people understand research without making the evidence say more than it does.
We develop features with researchers and bring professional editorial and creative judgement to their presentation. These principles guide both the finished articles and the shorter material used to introduce them to wider audiences.
THE SOURCE
The source comes first
We work from the relevant research and supporting material, identify the sources behind important claims and give readers a route back to the original work. A reference is there to support the explanation, not simply to make it look authoritative.
Where material is preliminary or has not been peer reviewed, we make that status clear. A feature in The Researcher is public communication, not a substitute for publication in a scholarly journal or for independent scientific scrutiny.
THE RESEARCHER’S VOICE
Researchers have a voice, not a script imposed on them
We bring the people behind the work into explaining its context and checking how it’s represented. Their perspective matters, including what they regard as uncertain or easily misunderstood.
We identify who wrote the feature and who contributed to it. A collaboratively developed article is credited as such; it is not presented as an unedited first-person account simply because a researcher approved it.
REVIEW
Review is a collaboration, not a purchase of a conclusion
Researchers review the scientific accuracy and representation of their work. Our editorial team remains responsible for the published framing, source clarity and avoidance of misleading claims. When there is a substantive disagreement, it needs resolving before the affected content is published.
ACCURACY
Clarity should not come at the expense of accuracy
We explain specialist terms, separate findings from interpretation and keep important limitations in view. Headlines, captions and promotional extracts should reflect the underlying work just as carefully as the full feature.
For health-related research, we make relevant distinctions clear, including whether evidence comes from laboratory work, animal research or studies involving people. We do not present a possible application as an established treatment.
HUMAN CRAFT
Human craft means identifiable responsibility
Our commitment is to people doing the work of understanding, writing, editing, illustrating and designing the features we publish. We do not use “human-crafted” as a substitute for explaining who contributed and who is accountable.
Digital tools may support planning, administration or other agreed production tasks. They do not remove the need to check sources, make editorial decisions and review the finished work. AI-generated text is not a research source.
We do not invent quotations, interviews, findings or researcher experiences. Nor do we present synthetic voices or portraits as genuine contributions from a researcher. Any material use of generative AI in published text or imagery should be disclosed clearly, including what was generated and how it was checked.
ILLUSTRATION
Illustrations explain; they do not manufacture evidence
An illustration can help explain an idea without being a photograph or an experimental result. We make that distinction clear where it matters. We do not alter or generate scientific images in ways that misrepresent the evidence.
COMMISSIONED WORK
Open about commissioned work
Our features may be funded through a commissioned communication service. We identify the commissioning relationship alongside the content, together with relevant declared interests. Where content requires an advertising label, that label appears clearly too.
Payment covers the communication work. It does not vouch for the quality of the underlying research, create an institutional endorsement, or entitle a client to claims the evidence won’t support.
CORRECTIONS
Corrections should be visible
Readers and researchers can raise a concern through our contact page, ideally with the article link and the specific point in question. We review the concern against the source material and seek clarification where necessary.
When a substantive correction is needed, we explain what changed and update the affected publication versions where practicable. We may add a notice or withdraw content while a serious issue is investigated.
DISCUSSION
Keep the conversation thoughtful
Questions and disagreements can deepen understanding. On channels where we host discussion, we welcome constructive contributions and may remove abuse, personal information, spam or material that puts people at risk. Public comments are not a route to individual medical advice.