Editorial Standards

Accuracy is the foundation of my journalism. I strive to ensure that names, dates, figures, quotations, medical claims and other factual details are correct before publication.

I do not knowingly publish false or misleading information. When a claim cannot be adequately verified, I seek further evidence, qualify the claim or leave it out.

I assess what the available evidence actually demonstrates rather than relying on promotional language or dramatic claims.

I distinguish between preliminary findings and established evidence, laboratory research and human studies, association and causation, and statistical results and their practical significance.

I communicate the strengths and limitations of research without exaggerating its implications.

I assess the reliability of information before publication, prioritising original research, peer-reviewed studies, clinical trial records, regulatory documents, official health advisories and relevant public-health authorities.

I examine the context in which findings were produced, including study design, limitations and whether conclusions are supported by the reported results.

I identify and link sources where possible so readers can examine the evidence behind my reporting.

I publish original journalism, explain developments reported elsewhere, aggregate important health news and provide context around medical research and public-health events.

I distinguish my own reporting from information originating with other journalists, publications, researchers and institutions.

When my reporting relies on another journalist's work or an external publication, I seek to identify and appropriately attribute the original reporting. Adding context or analysis does not remove my responsibility to acknowledge the source.

I write for readers who may not have a medical or scientific background.

I aim to make complex information understandable without losing the uncertainty, limitations or context necessary for accuracy. I explain technical terms where needed and avoid unnecessary jargon.

My aim is clarity without oversimplification. Making a story easier to understand must never mean changing what the evidence says.

Behind every health statistic are people whose lives and communities may be affected by the developments I report.

I avoid unnecessary sensationalism, dehumanising descriptions and imagery that treats suffering as spectacle. I approach patients, vulnerable communities and sensitive health information with care.

I seek to explain the human consequences of health developments without exploiting fear, grief or vulnerability, while respecting applicable privacy obligations and the dignity of the people involved.

A headline should earn the reader's attention rather than manipulate it.

I favour headlines that are clear, specific, relevant, accurate and proportionate to the evidence. I do not deliberately misrepresent findings, exaggerate risks or benefits, or create misleading information gaps simply to generate clicks.

The headline must reflect the substance of the story, not promise more than the reporting can support.

Health research and public-health developments do not always produce definitive answers.

I distinguish confirmed facts from preliminary reports, attributed claims, disputed information and details that remain under verification. I do not manufacture certainty where the evidence is limited or changing.

When information remains uncertain, I make those limitations clear so readers can understand what is known, what is not known and what remains to be established.

When a story is unfolding, I may publish information before every detail is known. In such situations, I make the available information and its limitations clear.

I update developing stories when material new information becomes available and correct information that is subsequently established to be wrong.

Being first is valuable, but speed does not justify presenting unverified claims as established facts. Accuracy takes precedence.

I maintain editorial independence from advertisers, sponsors, commercial partners and outside interests.

Commercial relationships do not purchase editorial coverage or determine my conclusions. Decisions about what to publish and how to report a story should be guided by evidence, editorial judgment and public interest rather than commercial pressure.

Sponsored and commercial content must be clearly distinguishable from editorial journalism.

Financial, professional and institutional relationships can affect how health information is produced, interpreted or perceived.

I consider relevant conflicts of interest when assessing sources, research and potential coverage. Where a conflict could reasonably affect the credibility or interpretation of a story, I seek to disclose it clearly.

Transparency about relevant interests helps readers assess the context in which information is presented.

Despite my efforts to verify information, errors can occur. When I identify a material factual error, I correct it promptly.

I clearly identify significant corrections and avoid making material changes in a way that misleads readers about what was originally reported.

I take responsibility for the journalism I publish, including errors in AI-assisted or externally sourced material. My Corrections & Fact-Checking page explains my approach in greater detail.

I publish health journalism to inform public understanding of health, medicine and scientific research.

My reporting does not replace individual medical advice, diagnosis or treatment from a qualified healthcare professional. I take particular care with claims about medicines, vaccines, treatments, clinical trials and medical risks because inaccurate information can influence personal and public-health decisions.

I aim to provide readers with reliable information and appropriate context without making unsupported medical recommendations or presenting uncertain findings as established guidance.

I seek stories that matter to patients, communities, health professionals, researchers, policymakers and the wider public.

I consider why a development matters, who may be affected and what readers need to understand its implications. I aim to provide context that helps readers assess the significance of health news rather than simply repeat announcements or statistics.

Public interest does not remove the responsibility to verify claims, respect privacy or report fairly.

Science evolves as new evidence emerges. Further research can strengthen, qualify or overturn previous conclusions.

I do not treat preliminary findings as settled science or present a study's conclusions as stronger than its evidence supports. I consider study limitations and distinguish researchers' interpretations from what the results directly demonstrate.

Revising a report or conclusion in response to stronger evidence is part of responsible journalism, not a failure of it.

AI tools may assist with research organisation, drafting, editing, transcription, translation and other editorial tasks. Their use does not remove my responsibility to verify information, attribute original work and assess the accuracy of published material.

AI-generated content is not automatically reliable, and AI-assisted fact-checking is not infallible. I do not knowingly use AI to fabricate sources, quotations, research findings, statistics or evidence.

Where AI materially contributes to published content or synthetic media in a way that could reasonably affect a reader's understanding, I consider whether disclosure is warranted. My AI Policy explains these principles in greater detail.

Before publication, I ask myself:

• Is the information accurate and supported by reliable evidence?
• Have I verified the important claims and understood the research correctly?
• Have I attributed original reporting fairly?
• Have I given readers enough context to understand the story?
• Have I communicated uncertainty honestly?
• Have I considered the people affected by the reporting?
• Have I identified relevant conflicts of interest?
• Would I stand behind this reporting if a reader, researcher or subject challenged it tomorrow?

These standards guide how I work at JOSEPH MMWA. They are commitments I strive to uphold in the journalism I publish and against which my editorial decisions should be assessed.

Accuracy, evidence, transparency, independence and accountability remain central to my work.