Editorial standards

This is the standard Peer Review holds itself to, in full.

Corroboration before publication

We do not publish single-source stories. A subject is only written up once at least 3 independent outlets have reported it, and the reports are compared against each other before anything is drafted. Where those outlets disagree, the disagreement is stated rather than smoothed over.

Original text, always

Every draft is checked automatically against the reporting it came from, and is rejected if more than 8% of its phrasing overlaps with any source. We summarise, compare and explain; we do not reproduce source text. Quotations, where used, are short, marked, and attributed.

AI assistance, disclosed

Drafting here is AI-assisted. That is a fact about our process we would rather state plainly than bury: a language model produces the first draft from the extracted source reporting, and an automated gate then checks it for length, sourcing, and similarity to the originals before it can publish. Stories that fail any of those checks are discarded, not fixed up and pushed through.

What this does not mean: invented facts, invented quotes, or invented sources. Every claim traces to the linked reports, and every article lists them.

Sources are always shown

Each article ends with the full list of reports it was synthesised from, linked directly. Those links are the point — if a story matters to you, read the original reporting, and credit the outlets that did the legwork.

Images

Photography is licensed stock, credited to the photographer with a link back to their profile and the original image. We do not use AI-generated imagery to illustrate reporting.

Corrections

Mistakes get corrected quickly and visibly. If something here is wrong, tell us on the contact page and we will correct or remove it. Publishers who would prefer not to be cited can ask the same way, and we will comply without argument.