Our editorial process at homeopathy.software
The homeopathy.software editorial process exists because the audience is mixed and transparency in sourcing matters. Each page must earn its keep on experience, expertise, and verifiable sourcing. Every URL on the site passes the seven-step pipeline described below, carries a named editor from a four-entry whitelist, and resolves every numeric citation in a ## References block at the foot of the page.
What we publish and what we refuse
| Dimension | We publish | We refuse |
|---|---|---|
| Therapeutic claim style | Sober reportage grounded in the practitioner-tradition canon, cited sources, and published vendor documentation | Marketing-style therapeutic claims, hyperbole, sensational adjectives |
| Bylines | 4 whitelisted names: editorial-board, marco-ruggeri, guest-contributor, editorial-team — see funding and conflict-of-interest declaration | Pseudonyms, undisclosed AI-only output, fabricated personas |
| Citations | Numbered [N] resolving to a References section, fetch-date for vendor specs | Vague appeals such as "experts say" or "studies show" without a source |
| Disclaimer placement | Sitewide footer plus inline before any indications list | Per-article banners (they read defensive and train readers to skip them) |
How we plan a page
A draft begins with a brief that pins the URL, the primary keyword, the audience segment, and the page type to a single row of our Phase 1 scope. The brief names the byline owner from the four-entry whitelist; no other byline is accepted, and pseudonyms are forbidden.
How we draft and review
First drafts are produced with AI assistance against the brief, then reviewed line-by-line by the named editor before publish. That editor accepts byline responsibility, verifies every numeric or factual claim against a primary source, and rewrites any sentence that reads as marketing rather than reporting. A two-axis review follows: axis 1 confirms each claim resolves to a citation and that the cited source is characterised correctly; axis 2 confirms the page's claims and framing are consistent with the cited sources. If axis 2 flags a gap, the page returns for rewrite rather than ship.
How we grade evidence
We grade every citation against a three-tier sourcing standard. Lower-grade claims may still appear, but only when labelled inline so the reader can weigh them.
| Grade | Definition | Example source | Inline label required? |
|---|---|---|---|
| B | Classical primary source with a named author, date, and declared scope | Repertory or materia-medica citation; practitioner-tradition work; published vendor documentation | No |
| C | Secondary commentary or later compilation with a named author and date | Modern textbook synthesis | Yes ("Grade C: secondary") |
| D | Editorial projection or extrapolation by our staff | Internal synthesis | Yes ("Grade D: editorial") |
How we correct mistakes
Substantive corrections (citation fix, vendor-spec refresh, rubric change, factual amendment) bump date_updated and post to /about/corrections-log/ with the old text, the new text, and the reason. Retractions are reserved for factual errors of clinical consequence, plagiarism, undisclosed material conflicts of interest, or undisclosed AI-only text; a retracted page is replaced with a retraction notice and pinned on the corrections log for twelve months. Readers can audit this work through /about/corrections-log/.