Editorial Policy
What this policy is
InsulinResistance.org publishes editorial reviews of the peer-reviewed research literature on metabolic health. Every research page passes seven internal editorial checks plus a credentialed medical review before it is published. This page explains what those checks are and how they work.
Scope
This policy applies to every page under /research/. Blog posts, guides, and other explanatory content follow the same evidence and voice standards but do not require the formal medical-review sign-off used on research pages.
The seven editorial gates
Every research review passes these seven checks before it is submitted for medical review.
V01 — Source of truth
Every medical claim on the page cites a current authoritative source. Acceptable sources are PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed journals, national health agencies (FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO), and established medical societies (ADA, AHA, ACC, KDIGO, and similar). Substacks, personal blogs, and advocacy sites are not accepted as evidence for medical claims.
V02 — Funding disclosure
When the underlying research has industry funding, undisclosed author affiliations, or other potential conflicts of interest, we say so on the page rather than in a footer or footnote. Reviews of research from author groups with contested public profiles include an explicit note so readers can weigh the source appropriately.
V03 — Currency of evidence
For claims about current clinical practice, most references are recent. Older citations appear only where they remain the canonical reference on a specific point (a foundational trial, a landmark mechanistic study, a still-current guideline). We check every page for outdated guideline versions before publication.
V04 — Source quality
Reference lists exclude Substacks, blogs, and anonymous sources. Peer-reviewed venues and official bodies only. Where a claim rests on a specific paper, we link directly to the DOI or publisher URL so readers can go to the original.
V05 — Headline-finding integrity
If a paper's headline claim has been contradicted by larger studies or subsequent guidelines, the review names the contradiction directly. We do not quietly omit findings that complicate the original paper's argument. Reviews are structured so that post-publication corroborating evidence and post-publication contested findings each get their own section.
V06 — Original data visualization
Every research review includes original figures. These are typically a timeline of the post-publication evidence and a comparison of key outcomes. Figures are custom-built for each review rather than reused across pages, and cite the primary sources they draw from.
V07 — Plain-language voice
Every page passes a readability and voice check before submission. We aim for readable clinical writing that does not oversimplify the underlying science. Reviews should be accessible to a non-specialist adult reader while being technically accurate for a clinical reader.
Medical review
After the seven internal gates, every research page is reviewed by a board-certified clinician in a relevant specialty. Our currentMedical Review Board is named on the site, with credentials, NPI numbers, and any disclosures visible.
The medical reviewer checks the page against the underlying primary sources, current clinical guidance from major bodies, and the practical accuracy of any advice offered to patients. Reviewers can flag content for revision, request additional citations, or add clinical caveats. Pages are not published until the reviewer signs off.
Bylines and dates
Each research page shows:
- The reviewer's name, credentials, and NPI, both in the byline and in a full reviewer block
- The date the review was last checked and refreshed
- The original publication date of the underlying research paper
Individual reviewer profiles are linked from every article they review, with education, specialty, and disclosure statement.
Updates and refresh cycle
Research pages are re-checked when new peer-reviewed evidence, updated clinical guidelines, or regulatory decisions materially affect the content. When a page is refreshed, the last-reviewed date is updated. Substantive changes are logged on ourcorrections and updates page.
Independence and funding
We take no funding from pharmaceutical, device, or supplement manufacturers. We do not run advertising, sponsored content, or affiliate placements. Reviewer honoraria are paid at market rate for the type of work performed and are not tied to any specific finding or framing.
Feedback and corrections
If you believe a claim on the site is wrong or a source has been misrepresented, please email info@pacshores.co. Substantive corrections are logged on the corrections page.