Editorial Trust
Editorial Standards
How Today in Public Health reports, sources, and reviews its work.
Our commitment
Today in Public Health aims to be engaging and rigorously well-sourced. We report with curiosity, ground claims in evidence, and clearly distinguish reporting from analysis and opinion. Where a piece is opinion, commentary, or analysis, we label it as such.
Primary-source standard
We prioritize primary sources — peer-reviewed research, official data, public records, and named experts — over secondhand summaries. Where a piece characterizes research in general terms rather than citing a specific study, we say so, and readers should treat those statements as directional summaries rather than sourced statistics. Every article carries a 'How we reported this' and 'Sources reviewed' section.
No fabricated reporting
We never invent sources, quotes, data, interviews, events, or credentials. We do not manufacture citations to imply rigor that does not exist. If we cannot substantiate a claim, we either attribute it honestly, label it as analysis, or leave it out.
Scientific uncertainty
Public health is a moving target. We communicate uncertainty honestly — distinguishing what the evidence shows, what is contested, and what is still unknown. Scenario and forward-looking pieces are labeled as qualitative and directional planning aids, not predictions.
Corrections are visible
When we get something wrong, we fix it in the open. Corrections and material updates are noted on the affected article itself. See our Corrections Policy.
Editorial & commercial firewall
Sponsors, underwriters, advertisers, partners, affiliated initiatives (including Quantish Solutions), and Today in Public Health Studios commissions cannot buy, shape, preview, or veto editorial coverage. This firewall is described in full in our Advertising & Sponsorship and Conflicts of Interest policies.
This page is an initial draft. Final legal and editorial copy is subject to review.