This page describes how an article on project-diada.org actually gets made, from the study landing in our feed to the piece going live.
Independence
Editorial decisions are made by Ethan Parker, Editor and nobody else. No advertiser, sponsor, institution, PR agency or researcher has any say over what we cover, how we cover it, or whether a piece runs. Nobody outside the editorial process sees an article before publication, with one exception: where a clinical reviewer is involved, described in our review policy.
How a story is chosen
We monitor a fixed set of research sources — journal feeds, university and government research announcements, and specialist research-reporting outlets. The full list and our appraisal rules are in the research and sources policy.
Candidates are judged on four things:
- Evidence strength. Is there a real, appraisable study behind it? Design, sample size, and whether it has been peer reviewed.
- Relevance. Would an ordinary reader recognise something from their own life in the finding?
- Whether it is new. We do not re-run a study we have already covered.
- Whether we can report it responsibly. Some findings cannot be written up for a general audience without becoming advice we are not qualified to give. Those we leave alone.
Anything below our evidence threshold is rejected regardless of how good the angle is. A day with nothing publishable is a normal outcome, not a failure.
Verification before writing
Before a word is written, the claim is traced back to the primary paper: DOI confirmed, journal and date checked, peer-review status established, and the record checked for a retraction notice. If the paper cannot be located, the story is dropped. This is set out in full in the fact-checking policy.
Writing
Articles run roughly 1,200 to 1,700 words and follow a consistent shape: what was found, why it works that way, what it means in practice, and what the study cannot tell you. Language is matched to the study design — correlational findings never get causal verbs. The rules are in how we write.
Review before publication
Every article is read by a human editor before it goes live. That pass checks the claims against the sources, the language against the study design, and the piece against our safety rules. We do not currently have a clinical reviewer, and we do not claim otherwise anywhere on this site.
What every article carries
- A byline and a publication date, and an updated date if it has been revised
- A linked list of sources, with the primary paper first
- A section stating the study’s limits
- A medical disclaimer
- Support information, where the subject touches distress or crisis
Updating and unpublishing
Articles are updated when new research materially changes the picture. Updates are dated. We do not silently rewrite a piece to change what it claimed — if a factual claim changes, that is a correction and it is disclosed as one.
We unpublish only where an article cannot be fixed by correcting it: the underlying paper is retracted, or the piece is wrong in a way that could cause harm. In those cases the page states what was removed and why rather than quietly disappearing.
Complaints
If you think we have breached this policy, write to [email protected]. Complaints are answered within 3 working days and, where we got it wrong, corrected publicly.