Who reads an article before it is published, what they check, and — just as important — what our review does not cover.
Editorial review: every article
Nothing is published on project-diada.org without a human editor reading it in full. That pass checks:
- Every factual claim against the source it came from
- The primary paper — located, opened, and matched against what the article says it found
- Language against study design: no causal claims on correlational findings
- Effect sizes translated accurately rather than inflated
- Sample described honestly, including its limits
- Statistics carrying their year and population
- Quotations verified against their source, or removed
- Safety rules applied — no diagnostic content, no treatment instructions, support information present where the subject warrants it
- The headline actually supported by the article beneath it
Ethan Parker, Editor is accountable for what appears on this site.
What we do not have: clinical review
project-diada.org does not currently have a named clinical reviewer. We are stating that plainly because the alternative — implying a medical review that has not happened — is the kind of thing that makes health publishing untrustworthy.
What this means in practice:
- No article on this site carries a “medically reviewed” line, because none has been medically reviewed.
- Our review verifies that we have reported the research accurately. It does not verify clinical safety, and it is not a substitute for professional judgement.
- We compensate by staying inside a narrow lane: we report what studies found. We do not give treatment guidance, diagnostic criteria, or advice about medication. See what we write and what we don’t.
We are actively looking for a qualified clinician to review articles in the health categories. If that could be you — psychologist, psychiatrist, GP, clinical social worker — please get in touch at [email protected]. It is a small commitment and it would meaningfully improve this site.
What review never means
Review, clinical or otherwise, does not make an article medical advice. It does not mean the underlying research is correct — peer-reviewed studies are sometimes wrong, and some are later retracted. And it cannot tell you whether a finding applies to you specifically. Our disclaimer sets out the limits.
Re-review
Articles updated with new research go through review again before the update is published. Where an article is more than two years old and covers a fast-moving area, we either revisit it or mark it as reflecting the evidence at the time of writing.
Questions
If you think something got through review that should not have: [email protected].