Editorial policy
How we review
How we prepare articles, where AI helps, how we cite evidence and what our review can—and cannot—guarantee.
About our author names and portraits
Diat publishes under editorial pen names. The portraits on author cards are AI-generated illustrations, not photographs of the people behind the writing. We do not claim professional qualifications for these bylines unless verified and stated on the article.
How an article gets made
These are the standards we use when preparing and updating guides.
Question first, not headline first
Each guide is organised around a practical reader question. The headline and opening should make clear what the article can answer and what it cannot.
Find direct sources
We prefer official health guidance and original research to marketing claims. The sources used for an article are listed at its end.
Check what a source actually says
Numbers and claims should match their linked source. A single trial is described as a single trial; an abstract is not presented as a complete review.
Write with uncertainty
We distinguish guidelines, controlled studies and preliminary findings in ordinary language. When evidence is limited, the article should say so.
Run publication checks
The publishing system checks structure, covers, source lists and links. These automated checks support editing; they are not a substitute for expert review.
Name the limits
Diat articles are general information, not individual medical advice. We do not claim clinical review or a writer's professional qualification unless it has been verified and named.
How we weigh evidence
Not all studies deserve the same verb. We reserve “shows” for findings supported by systematic reviews or several well-run randomised trials; “suggests” for a single trial or consistent observational data; and “hints” for mechanistic, animal or very small human work.
Rodent and cell studies may explain a mechanism but never carry a recommendation on their own, and we say so in the text. Surrogate outcomes are labelled as such — a change in a blood marker is not the same as a change in how long or how well someone lives.
Effect sizes are given in terms you can act on, with absolute numbers alongside any relative risk. Where the evidence is genuinely unsettled, the article says that instead of picking a side for the sake of a conclusion.
Sourcing and citations
- We link important factual claims to official guidance or original research where possible, and list sources at the end.
- We do not treat a preprint or a single small study as settled medical advice.
- Commercial claims receive particular scrutiny. A product claim is not evidence simply because it appears in a study summary.
- A real quotation is attributed and linked to its source. Unattributed editorial lines are labelled as our takeaway.
- Articles carry a published date and, when meaningfully revised, an updated date. Please check those dates when reading advice.
Conflicts of interest
The short version: we never take supplement money. The longer version is a set of rules we hold ourselves to.
- We accept no payment, free product, affiliate commission or sponsorship from supplement manufacturers or sellers — not for articles, not for the newsletter, not for social posts.
- No one who writes or edits for Diat may hold a paid advisory role with a company whose product that article discusses.
- Any commercial relationship that could reasonably look like a conflict is disclosed at the top of the affected article, not buried at the bottom.
- Writers declare relevant financial interests before being commissioned, and update that declaration if it changes.
- Nothing commercially sponsored is written as editorial. If it were ever to appear, it would be labelled as advertising in the headline area.
- Commercial partners never see a draft before publication and never get a say in what an article concludes.
Use of AI tools
AI tools help draft and edit some Diat articles and generate some illustrative cover photographs. The author names are pen names, and their portraits are AI-generated. These visuals do not depict real contributors or real documented meals.
Source links are included so readers can inspect the evidence. AI output can be wrong; neither an AI draft nor an automated source check is clinical or independent peer review. No article claims a clinical reviewer unless one is explicitly named.
Corrections
We will get things wrong. What matters is what happens next, so here is the ladder we use.
- Typo or broken link
- Fixed silently. No note needed, because nothing about the meaning changed.
- Clarification
- The claim stands but the wording was ambiguous. We rewrite it and add a dated clarification line at the foot of the article.
- Correction
- A fact, figure or citation was wrong. We fix it, add a dated correction notice saying what the article previously said, and keep that notice permanently.
- Retraction
- The central argument does not hold. We mark the article as retracted, explain why at the top, and leave it up rather than quietly deleting it.
How to report an error
A monitored corrections inbox is being set up. Once it is ready, the contact page will show the verified address. Include the article link, the sentence in question and a source if you have one when you report a concern.
- We will not promise a response time before the inbox is active.
- Clear factual errors should be corrected visibly, with a dated note when the meaning changes.
- A correction note should explain the previous wording and the reason for the change.
For anything that is not a correction, the contact page has the right address.