Editorial standards

How Psychosomatics prepares, reviews, updates, and corrects educational material.

Updated August 5, 2026. The editorial process aims to explain difficult subjects accurately and clearly without claims that may cause shame, pseudodiagnosis, or delay appropriate care.

Evidence standard

Preference is given to official clinical and public-health guidance, systematic reviews, peer-reviewed research, and primary sources.
The strength of wording should match the strength of evidence: an association is not described as a proven cause.
A single study, expert opinion, or clinical example is not presented as a universal conclusion.
Sources are considered for relevance, method, date, and potential conflicts of interest.
Uncertainty, conflicting evidence, and limits of application are stated directly.

Language and safety standard

Material should

distinguish education from diagnosis and treatment;
avoid blaming a person for a symptom or searching for a single “guilty emotion”;
avoid claiming that one childhood experience explains all adult life;
include self-help limits and a clear route to appropriate support;
use respectful, non-stigmatizing, and accessible language.

Preparation and review

Editorial cycle

Stage	What happens
Plan	Define the reader question, risks, scope, and source needs.
Draft	Separate facts from interpretation and add practical limits and context.
Psychology edit	Review language, clinical assumptions, safety, and overgeneralization risk.
Fact and source check	Check claims, sources, dates, and attribution.
Publish	Add authorship, description, metadata, and date.
Review	Update for new evidence, changed guidance, an error, or reader feedback.

Report a source problem, conflict of interest, or editorial error to info@neurolutionary.com.