Our Editorial Policy
At Anmotion, trust is earned through rigor, transparency, and accountability. This policy outlines how we create, review, and maintain our health content — and our commitment to correcting the record when we fall short.
Guiding Principles
These six principles govern every editorial decision we make.
Accuracy Over Speed
We prioritize being right over being first. Breaking health news waits for verification.
Evidence Over Opinion
Personal anecdotes and expert opinions are clearly labeled. Recommendations are graded by evidence strength.
Transparency Over Authority
We show our work — sources, methods, reviewers, dates. Readers can verify everything.
Currency Over Archive
Outdated content is updated or clearly marked. We don't let old advice persist unchecked.
Harm Reduction
Content includes appropriate medical disclaimers. We never recommend discontinuing prescribed treatments.
Independence
Editorial decisions are made solely by our editorial team. Sponsors have zero influence on content.
Our 6-Step Editorial Process
Every article passes through this rigorous workflow before reaching you.
Topic Selection
We identify topics based on scientific relevance, reader demand, and emerging health trends. Topics are evaluated against current clinical guidelines and research priorities.
Expert Assignment
Each article is assigned to a qualified subject-matter expert — physicians, registered dietitians, clinical psychologists, or certified fitness professionals with relevant credentials.
Research & Writing
Authors conduct comprehensive literature reviews using PubMed, Cochrane Library, clinical practice guidelines, and systematic reviews. All claims are cited with primary sources.
Medical Review
Every article undergoes mandatory review by a board-certified professional in the relevant specialty. Reviewers verify accuracy, context, and clinical appropriateness.
Fact-Checking
Our fact-checking team independently verifies every statistic, citation, and claim against original sources. Discrepancies are resolved before publication.
Publication & Monitoring
Articles are published with review dates and reviewer credentials. We monitor new research and update content when evidence changes significantly.
Content Standards
The specific standards every article must meet.
Primary Sources Only
We cite peer-reviewed journals (NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ), Cochrane reviews, clinical practice guidelines from major medical societies, and government health agencies (NIH, CDC, WHO). We never cite blogs, news articles, or commercial websites as evidence.
Medical Review Required
No health content publishes without review by a qualified professional. Reviewer name, credentials, and review date are displayed on every article. Reviewers must have active, relevant board certification.
Clear Uncertainty Language
We distinguish between established evidence, emerging research, and expert opinion. Phrases like "studies suggest," "may help," and "more research is needed" are used appropriately. Absolute claims require systematic review-level evidence.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Authors and reviewers disclose all relevant financial relationships, industry affiliations, and potential biases. Articles with industry-adjacent topics undergo additional independent review.
Living Document Policy
Every article displays "Last reviewed" date. Content is audited annually at minimum. Major updates trigger re-review. Outdated content is archived with clear notice. Readers can report outdated information via a feedback link.
Accessibility & Inclusivity
Content follows plain language principles. Medical jargon is defined. Diverse populations are represented in examples and imagery. We avoid stigmatizing language around weight, mental health, and chronic conditions.
Correction & Retraction Policy
We believe in owning our mistakes transparently. Here's how we handle errors.
| Type | Description | Action Taken | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor Correction | Typos, formatting fixes, broken links, clarification of existing statements. | Updated silently with "Last updated" timestamp. | Within 24 hours of discovery |
| Substantive Correction | Factual errors, outdated statistics, misinterpreted study findings, missing context that changes meaning. | Correction notice at top of article with date, description of change, and original text. | Within 48 hours of verification |
| Major Correction / Retraction | Fundamental errors invalidating conclusions, safety concerns, ethical violations. | Prominent retraction notice, explanation, and link to corrected version if applicable. May remove from index. | Immediate upon determination |
Report an error: If you believe we\'ve made an error, email corrections@anmotion.in with the article URL and details. We investigate every report.
Evidence Hierarchy
Not all evidence is equal. We grade and disclose the strength of evidence behind our claims.
Strong Evidence
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs with low risk of bias, high-quality clinical guidelines (GRADE A)
Moderate Evidence
Well-designed cohort studies, case-control studies, clinical guidelines based on moderate evidence (GRADE B)
Limited Evidence
Case series, expert opinion, mechanistic reasoning, preclinical studies
Insufficient Evidence
Anecdotal reports, theoretical concerns, conflicting evidence
Editorial Independence
Anmotion\'s editorial content is created independently by our editorial team. We do not accept payment for coverage, we do not allow sponsors to review or approve content before publication, and we do not enter into agreements that compromise editorial control.
Revenue from premium programs, subscriptions, and partnerships funds our operations — but these revenue sources havezero influence on what we publish, how we frame topics, or which experts we consult.
Our medical review board operates independently. Reviewers are selected for expertise, not affiliation. They receive honoraria for their time but have no financial stake in Anmotion\'s commercial success.