This page describes how articles on WeightLiteracy.org are created, reviewed, and published. We publish this because transparency about editorial process is part of what makes health content trustworthy.
Where Articles Come From
Articles begin as topics selected by our editorial team based on what our readers actually need to know.
Topic selection is driven by three questions: Is this something patients, caregivers, or consumers are genuinely confused about? Is accurate, non-promotional information on this topic hard to find? Does this fit our educational mission?
We do not accept topic suggestions from commercial entities. Topics are not chosen based on advertising relationships, affiliate arrangements, or external promotional pressure.
How Articles Are Structured
Before any article is written, the editorial team produces a brief that defines:
- The specific question the article answers
- Who the intended reader is and what they already know
- What the article must not claim, imply, or promise
- Which published sources are expected to support the key claims
- What the reader should understand or be able to do after reading
This brief governs the entire article. An article that drifts from its brief — into overclaiming, underclaiming, or serving a different purpose than the one it was assigned — is revised before it advances.
Sourcing Standards
Every factual claim in a published article is either:
- Attributed to a named published source inline — a clinical trial, FDA document, peer-reviewed journal article, or major health authority publication — or
- Stated as general medical consensus and qualified accordingly
We do not publish specific statistics, outcome figures, or mechanistic claims without inline attribution. If a claim cannot be sourced, it is generalized or removed.
Sources are listed at the end of every clinical article. Source selection follows a hierarchy: peer-reviewed primary research, systematic reviews, FDA prescribing information and regulatory documents, major health authority publications. Manufacturer materials, press releases, and secondary aggregators are not used as primary sources.
The Review Process
Every article passes through multiple review stages before publication.
Editorial review covers structure, clarity, tone, and adherence to the brief. Reviewers check that the article does not overstate evidence, does not present uncertain findings as established fact, and does not contain language that could be read as directing a specific person toward a specific clinical decision.
Medical review for clinical content covers claim accuracy, source quality, contraindication completeness, harm risk, and appropriate hedging. The specific scope of medical review is described on our Medical Review Process page.
Compliance review checks for absolute claims that should be hedged, statistics without attribution, language that could constitute individual medical advice, and omissions that could mislead readers about risk or appropriate use.
An article that does not pass all three stages is revised. It is not published with known problems and corrected afterward.
What We Check Before Publishing
Before an article is published, we confirm:
- All major claims are attributed to named sources
- Medical disclaimers are present where required
- The article includes a “Who This May Not Be Appropriate For” section where relevant
- The article distinguishes between what evidence has established and what remains uncertain
- Every benefit or positive finding described in a clinical context is accompanied by a relevant limitation, exception, or uncertainty in the same section
- The review date and next scheduled review date are set correctly based on how quickly the content is likely to change
- The article does not contain content that could cause a reader to delay appropriate care or make a clinical decision without provider guidance
Medical Disclaimers
All articles covering medications, clinical conditions, or health decisions include this disclaimer or a close equivalent:
This article is for educational purposes only. It is not medical advice, diagnosis, or a recommendation for any specific course of action. Talk to a qualified healthcare provider before making any changes to your health plan.
The presence of a disclaimer does not make a harmful article safe. Our review process is designed to ensure that the article itself is sound — the disclaimer is not a substitute for accuracy.
Corrections and Updates
Health information changes. When an article contains an error or when the underlying evidence has materially changed, we update it.
Our approach to corrections is described in our Editorial Policy. Our approach to scheduled content review — including how often different types of articles are re-reviewed — is also described there.
What We Do Not Do
We do not publish sponsored content. We do not write promotional articles in exchange for payment or other consideration. We do not allow advertisers or commercial partners to influence editorial decisions, topic selection, or article framing.
We do not use patient testimonials as evidence of efficacy. We do not use before-and-after narratives to imply results. We do not publish content that presents anecdote as data.
We do not publish articles that cannot be sourced, hedged, and reviewed to our editorial standard — regardless of how useful the topic might otherwise be to cover.
Our Standard in Plain Language
We publish content we would want a family member to read before making a health decision. That means it needs to be accurate, honest about uncertainty, clear about what it is and is not, and free of any incentive to mislead.
When an article falls short of that standard, it does not get published.