Editorial standards and corrections

A useful genetics article should answer a real question, show where its evidence comes from and make its limits understandable. These standards apply to the medical articles in our public library.

Who is responsible?

The publisher and medical editor is Saeed Reza Ghaffari, MD, MSc, PhD, Medical Genetics Specialist. Each reviewed article names the person who recorded approval and the review date. General site ownership and article-specific review are separate responsibilities.

From a question to a published article

1. Choose the question. Define the reader and what the article should help that reader understand or do.
2. Check the evidence. Use original studies, professional guidance, public health agencies and curated genetics resources as appropriate. Keep the source links beside relevant claims.
3. Write an original explanation. Add context, a useful example, a diagram or a practical way to work with the information. A reworded source summary alone is not the goal.
4. Complete specialist review. Check medical accuracy, balance, applicability, limitations and the supporting sources. Save the final text before recording approval.
5. Publish the approved version. New medical articles remain private until approved. Changes to reviewed text or evidence require fresh approval.

Writing tools and human accountability

AI tools can assist with research organization and drafting. They are not medical reviewers. A source-access check or an automated writing check is not specialist approval. The named reviewer remains responsible for the review they record; the publisher remains responsible for what appears on the site.

Evidence, examples and illustrations

We distinguish a laboratory finding from a diagnosis, an association from causation, and an experimental treatment from established care. Where evidence is uncertain, the article should say what remains unresolved. References support particular claims; inclusion does not imply that their authors reviewed our explanation.

Fictional examples are identified as such. Diagrams are educational illustrations, not patient records or measurements from a study. Decorative editorial images are not presented as photographs of patients or clinical results.

Corrections and updates

To report a concern, use the contact form and include the article link, the passage in question, why it may be wrong and a source if available. Choose an editorial correction or website issue as the reason for contact. Do not include confidential medical information.

The editor evaluates the concern against the cited evidence. A material correction is checked before the revised medical article is approved. The article shows its update and review dates; a change to navigation or a date label is not a new medical review. An article can be withheld while a substantial concern is investigated.

External sources and research tools

Source watch is a separate, automatically refreshed list of external headlines. These are links to other publishers, not our own reporting or an endorsement of a study. Dates belong to the original source. Research worksheets organize information entered by the reader; they do not produce a diagnosis or an automated clinical judgment.

Advertising and interests

Advertising is separate from medical review and does not amount to an endorsement. Our advertising policy explains the placement rules. Any sponsorship or relevant author interest associated with an article should be disclosed on that article.

Keeping the library useful

Corrections are assessed when received. Research-methods and emerging-treatment articles are prioritized for a source and guidance check at least every six months; stable introductory guides are prioritized annually. These are maintenance targets, not claims that a new review has occurred. Important new guidance, a correction or retraction, or a credible reader concern can trigger an earlier review.

A source check records access to the evidence. A substantive revision explains what changed and stays in the private review queue until a specialist approves the complete text, references and figures. Existing reviewed content remains available unless a material concern warrants withholding it. Publication, substantive-revision and medical-review dates are shown separately when the corresponding record exists.

Brief introductions are intentionally concise. Practical guides address decisions and questions; evidence reviews and research commentaries explain study design and limitations. Our narrative articles are not systematic reviews unless a documented protocol and reproducible search explicitly establish that scope.