Contact the editorial board

homeopathy.software is an editorial hub that publishes prescribing guidance, comparative reviews, and methodology notes for practitioners trained in the classical and post-classical repertorial traditions [1]. The editorial board accepts correspondence on factual corrections to published material, pitches for new work, and case-record submissions from credentialed practitioners. The board reads every message; response windows vary by channel.

The board's stance on correspondence follows Article 12 of the editorial constitution, which states that every published piece carries a named editor and that every editor accepts written challenges to the claims they signed [1]. The Hahnemannian principle that prescribing claims must be defensible against case-record evidence [2] is the same principle the board applies to its own articles — if a reader can point to a missed citation or a misread proving, the correction enters the next revision cycle within the response window stated below. Practitioner-tradition correspondence (Kent, Hering, Boenninghausen, Boger, Vithoulkas, Sankaran) is read by the staff editor whose declared remit covers that lineage; the assignment table is published quarterly with the masthead.

Channels and response windows

Routing the message to the correct address shortens the response window materially; mail sent to the general inbox is re-routed manually and adds roughly five working days to the queue. The board does not publish a public phone number — written correspondence creates a record that both sides can cite, which matches the editorial preference for traceable claims grounded in repertorial sources such as Kent's Repertory of the Materia Medica and Boenninghausen's Therapeutic Pocket Book [3].

What the board does not handle

Under Article 12 of the editorial constitution [1], editors do not provide individual clinical advice and do not respond to requests for prescribing recommendations on a named patient. Readers seeking a prescriber should consult the practitioner directory maintained by their national society; the board can, on request, point to the directory but does not vet individual entries.

Pitches that arrive without a working byline, a stated conflict-of-interest declaration, or at least one Grade-A or Grade-B citation in the proposed outline are returned with a one-paragraph note explaining the gap. The same evidence-grading rubric applies to staff writers. The board's own conflict-of-interest position is set out on the funding page.

Corrections workflow

Once a correction is logged at editors@homeopathy.software, the assigned editor reviews the cited evidence, contacts the original author, and either issues a public correction at the foot of the affected article or — for more substantive disputes — opens a second-pair-of-eyes review by another board member [1]. Corrections are versioned and the prior text remains accessible via the article's revision history; the full workflow is documented in the editorial process and each accepted correction is logged at the corrections log.

Practitioners who file a correction are credited by name in the revision note unless they opt out in writing. The board accepts anonymous corrections but cannot publish anonymous credit; that policy protects readers from drive-by edits that cannot be traced to a working clinician.

Pitching and submission notes for practitioners

For practitioners pitching original work, the editorial guideline of one citation per non-trivial factual claim applies from the outline onward; pitches that lean on tradition alone without anchoring to a primary source (Hahnemann's Organon [2], a named repertory, or a journal-indexed clinical study) are sent back for sourcing before the substantive review begins. Anonymised case write-ups are accepted under a structured template available on request from submissions@homeopathy.software.

Verdict

The fastest route is direct correspondence to the matching channel above; the second-fastest is sending a complete pitch (byline, conflict declaration, two Grade-A or Grade-B sources) instead of a query about whether a pitch would be welcome. For practitioners who want to test a structured repertorial workflow against the editorial board's evidence rubric while they wait for a reply, Try Similia Pro free.

References

1. homeopathy.software Editorial Constitution v1, Article 12 (2026) — on named editors and the corrections workflow.
2. Hahnemann, S. (1842). Organon der Heilkunst, 6th ed., §§ 153–155 on the doctrine of characteristic symptoms.
3. Boenninghausen, C. von (1846). Therapeutic Pocket Book; Kent, J.T. (1897). Repertory of the Materia Medica.