Editorial Policy
How we research, review and publish
The Mad Honey Guide helps readers distinguish established evidence from traditional knowledge, emerging research, and commercial claims.
Sourcing standards
Our sources must support the specific claims we make. We examine what a study measured, who or what it studied, how it was conducted, and whether its conclusions apply to the question readers are asking. For health and science coverage, we prioritise relevant human research, systematic reviews, and guidance from public-health authorities. Case reports can document an adverse reaction, but cannot establish how commonly it occurs or prove a general health benefit. Laboratory and animal research are identified clearly, with their limitations explained.
Legal coverage relies on legislation and official regulatory guidance. Each country guide specifies its jurisdiction, the activity being discussed, and the date its sources were checked.
Cultural and historical coverage draws on original records, scholarly research, interviews, and local knowledge. We distinguish documented events from later interpretations and identify whose experiences or traditions are being represented.
Our sourcing rules
Link important factual claims to sources that directly support them.
Read the original source where available; identify reliance on a secondary account.
Distinguish human evidence from animal experiments and laboratory findings.
Explain uncertainty, conflicting findings, and gaps in the evidence.
Treat commercial material as a statement from an interested party, rather than independent verification.
Identify the source and context of quotations, translations, and oral accounts.
Use internal links to help readers navigate; they do not replace supporting evidence.
Review cadence
Every article receives an editorial check before publication.
A review date means the relevant claims and sources were checked. It does not simply mean someone changed the page.
Section | Pre-publication | Re-review | Out-of-cycle trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
Safety | Subject edit, source check, clinical review | Every 6 months | Any new clinical literature; any reader report of a factual error |
Science | Subject edit, source check, clinical review | Every 12 months | New primary study, retraction, or correction to a cited paper |
Law | Subject edit, statute check against primary text | Every 6 months | Statutory amendment, new agency guidance, court decision |
Basics, Comparisons, Guides | Subject edit, source check | Every 12 months | Change in an underlying Safety or Science article |
Culture, History | Subject edit, source check | Every 24 months | New scholarship; correction from a person or community described |
Publication and review dates appear on each article. If an important claim is under review, we explain that on the page.
How we assess evidence
We assess individual claims, because one article can contain findings with very different levels of support. A well-documented historical practice, for example, does not establish that the practice provides a medical benefit.
Grade | Test it must pass | How it is written | Worked example |
|---|---|---|---|
Established | Supported by more than one independent peer-reviewed source, with no substantial contradicting literature, and a plausible mechanism. | Stated plainly in the indicative. No hedge. The citation carries the weight. | Grayanotoxins bind sodium channels and delay their inactivation. |
Supported | Good evidence, limited in scale or setting. Clinical case series, or repeated animal work with a plausible read-across, stated as such. | The limitation travels with the claim in the same sentence. | Bradycardia and hypotension are the typical presentation in reported poisonings. |
Contested | Real evidence exists on more than one side, or a single study whose method is disputed in print. | The disagreement is described, not averaged. Name what each side rests on. | How much grayanotoxin content varies by rhododendron species alone. |
Unsupported | Widely repeated, no evidence we can find. | State the claim, state that it is unsupported, and say where it came from. | Aphrodisiac claims in marketing and folklore. |
Grades are assigned by the writer, checked at source-check stage, and revisited at every re-review. A grade moving down is treated as an update and logged, because a reader who acted on “Supported” deserves to know it is now “Contested”.
Corrections policy
We correct in the open. When a factual error is confirmed, the article is fixed within two working days, a dated note is appended at the foot of the article explaining what was wrong, and a permanent row is added to the log. We do not silently edit, we do not delete an article to make an error disappear, and we do not remove old log rows.
Correction
A published fact, figure, quotation, reference, or interpretation was incorrect. We replace it with accurate information and explain what was wrong and why it changed. Corrections affecting safety receive a prominent notice on the article.
Clarification
A statement needed more context or could reasonably be misunderstood. We revise the wording and explain the distinction so readers can understand the evidence and its limits.
Update
New research, official guidance, or regulatory developments have changed the information available. We revise the relevant content, record the development, and update the review date where appropriate.
Conflict of interest
Some contributors have current or previous professional connections to the honey industry. These relationships can provide useful knowledge and access, but they can also influence judgment.
Relevant financial, professional, and personal interests are disclosed on contributor profiles and within the articles they could affect. Readers should be able to understand both a contributor’s expertise and their potential conflicts.
Our editorial boundaries
We accept no payment in exchange for coverage or favourable conclusions.
We sell no products, recommend no sellers, and use no affiliate links.
Commercial organisations cannot approve our conclusions or control publication.
We assign another editor or reviewer when a conflict could compromise an assessment.
Sources may check attributed quotations or specific factual details, while editorial decisions remain with the publication.
Contributors must update their disclosures when relevant relationships change.
Use of AI
AI may assist with parts of the editorial process. A named human author or editor remains responsible for the accuracy, sourcing, and judgment in everything we publish.
Permitted Uses
Suggesting outlines and questions for further research.
Improving readability without changing factual meaning.
Assisting with transcription or translation, checked against the original.
Identifying potential inconsistencies for an editor to investigate.
Uses we do not permit
Treating generated text as a factual source.
Publishing references, quotations, or statistics without verification.
Inventing experts, interviews, personal experiences, or field reporting.
Replacing professional review of medical or legal claims with AI.