Editorial Policy

This policy describes the editorial standard for Everyday Science Digest and its coverage of science education and exploration. It applies to proposed contributions as well as material prepared for the publication.

Purpose and relevance

Articles should help readers understand a subject, consider a useful idea or make a practical decision. A clear connection to the publication’s subjects is required. General introductions should lead to specific explanations rather than repeating the same claim in different words.

Accuracy and evidence

Factual claims should be checked against appropriate sources. Quotations, research findings and numerical claims need enough context for a reader to understand what they establish. Opinion and interpretation should be distinguishable from established facts. Examples must be labelled when they are hypothetical; an imagined case must not be presented as an interview, visit or reported event.

Attribution and originality

Submissions must be original or used with appropriate permission. Credit the source of quotations, distinctive ideas and other people’s work. Images need appropriate rights and useful descriptions. Rewriting another article without adding independent value is not an acceptable contribution.

Editing and assisted work

Editorial review considers relevance, clarity, evidence and whether the title’s promise is fulfilled. Automated tools can assist drafting or checks, but their output still requires review. Contributors remain responsible for checking facts, attribution and any material produced with such tools.

Interests and commercial material

Disclose relevant employment, financial interests, sponsorship and personal relationships. Paid or promotional material must be identifiable. A commercial relationship does not justify unsupported claims or the removal of necessary context.

Corrections and concerns

If you identify an error, use the Contact page with the article title or address, the statement in question and supporting information. Distinguish a factual correction from a difference of opinion. A request can then be assessed against the published material and the available evidence.