Editorial and Medical Review Policy

Our medical articles are written by licensed healthcare professionals and reviewed by experts in the subject before publication. This policy explains how we select contributors, assess evidence, and take responsibility for what we publish.

Authors and accountability

Authors must hold an appropriate healthcare licence and write within their knowledge and experience. We check their identity, qualifications, registration, and relevant background before accepting them as medical contributors.

Each author is responsible for the accuracy and originality of their work. Contributions must be acknowledged, sources credited, and relevant interests declared. Every named author must approve the final text.

Evidence and context

Medical claims need sources that support what is actually being said. We use relevant research, systematic reviews, clinical guidance, and authoritative health resources, weighing their quality, limitations, and currency.

An early finding is not an established treatment. An association is not proof of cause. Articles should make these distinctions clear, explain meaningful uncertainty, and avoid overstating benefits or overlooking harms. References allow readers to check the evidence for themselves.

Review by a subject expert

The reviewer must have relevant expertise, demonstrated through clinical work, active research, or published work in the article’s field. We assess that background for the topic being reviewed. A reviewer does not review their own article.

Review covers the medical claims, use of evidence, clinical context, balance, and clarity. Reviewers flag unsupported statements, missing safety information, and conclusions that go beyond the sources. Authors address the comments, and material changes return for review before approval.

Reviewers must disclose competing interests and decline work they cannot assess fairly or competently. Submissions and review discussions are confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Relevant reviewer information and the completed review date accompany the published medical article.

Editorial decisions

The editor checks that review comments have been resolved, permissions are in place, references have been checked, and disclosures are complete. A submission may be revised, declined, or accepted. Acceptance depends on the work meeting these standards, not on a payment or relationship.

Contributors may ask for a decision to be reconsidered by explaining the concern and providing relevant evidence. A concern about the handling editor must be considered by someone without that conflict.

Originality, privacy, and tools

We do not accept plagiarism, fabricated references, misleading images, or undisclosed reuse. Authors must have permission for material they do not own. Identifiable patient information requires valid consent for publication; unnecessary identifying details must be removed.

AI and other writing tools cannot be authors or replace professional judgement. Contributors must disclose substantive assistance to the editor, check every claim and citation, and take responsibility for the final work. Material assistance is explained to readers. Confidential submissions and patient information must not be entered into public AI tools.

After publication

We reassess content when important evidence, guidance, or a reported concern changes its meaning. Substantive medical revisions require fresh review. Dates describe work actually completed; a spelling edit does not make an article newly reviewed.

Our Corrections Policy explains how we amend the record. Our Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence policy explains how we manage competing interests. Editorial questions can be sent to contact@medullis.com.