POLICY 06
Editorial Standards & Corrections
How Clear Pulse approaches health content, sourcing, clinical review, updates, corrections, and editorial independence.
Our Editorial Standards
Health content carries real consequences, so Clear Pulse follows a defined editorial process rather than relying solely on editorial judgement or instinct.
Our aim is to publish health information that is clear, responsibly sourced, appropriately reviewed, and transparent about what the available evidence can and cannot support.
Evidence First
Health claims should be grounded in reliable research and recognised health guidance.
Clinical Review
Health-category content should receive appropriate clinical review before publication.
Transparency
Sources, review information, updates, and meaningful corrections should be visible to readers.
How an Article Is Made
A health writer is briefed around a specific reader question.
Writers work from peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, clinical guidance, and recognised national health bodies rather than relying primarily on press releases or secondary reporting.
Research & Writing
A health writer researches the reader question and prepares the article using appropriate evidence.
Editorial Review
An editor checks the article’s structure, sourcing, context, and claims.
Clinical Review
A licensed clinical reviewer checks clinical statements before health-category content is approved for publication.
Reviewer Transparency
Where applicable, the reviewer’s name, credential, and review date are displayed on the article.
Sourcing Rules
Clear Pulse aims to cite the primary source rather than relying on another article that reports on the original evidence.
We prefer systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and other higher-quality evidence over individual studies where appropriate.
When a claim depends on a small, preliminary, or otherwise limited study, that limitation should be made clear in the article rather than presenting the finding as settled.
Stronger Sources
- Peer-reviewed research
- Systematic reviews
- Clinical guidelines
- Primary research sources
- National and recognised health bodies
Evidence Limitations
- Small or preliminary studies
- Single studies without broader support
- Predatory or unreliable journals
- Supplement-industry material presented as scientific evidence
Updates and Re-Review
Articles should display a publication date and, where applicable, an updated date.
Health articles should be reviewed again at least every [review interval], and sooner when significant clinical guidance or relevant evidence changes.
When an article receives a substantive update, the reviewer information and review date should also be updated where appropriate.
Original publication date.
Date of a meaningful content update.
Date of applicable clinical review.
Corrections
If Clear Pulse publishes a factual error, readers are encouraged to tell us at support@clear-pulse.com .
Factual errors should be corrected promptly. When a meaningful correction is made, Clear Pulse should add a dated correction note explaining what changed rather than silently editing and republishing the article.
Significant corrections involving clinical content should be re-reviewed before the corrected information is published.
Help Us Correct It
Send the article link and a brief explanation of what you believe is incorrect.
Report an ErrorEditorial Independence
Advertising, affiliate arrangements, and sponsorship should not influence Clear Pulse editorial decisions.
Commercial or sponsored content should be clearly labelled so readers can distinguish it from independent editorial material.
Medical and clinical reviewers are compensated for their review time and should never be paid for reaching a favourable conclusion about a product, claim, or article.
Contact Clear Pulse
Report an error, ask about our sourcing, or contact us about editorial standards.
Last updated: September 2026