Editorial standards
How we decide what we can say
Every claim on this site is tied to a source and to an evidence tier that governs how strongly it may be worded. This page explains that system so you can hold us to it.
Evidence tiers
The single most common failure in health writing is letting a laboratory result be worded as a clinical outcome. We separate the two explicitly. Each claim is assigned a tier, and the tier determines the language permitted:
| Tier | What it means | Permitted wording |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical evidence | Randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews in humans. | "has been shown to", "clinical trials found" |
| Preliminary evidence | Small, uncontrolled or non-randomised human studies; case series. | "early studies suggest", "in a small trial" |
| Mechanism | Laboratory or animal work establishing a plausible pathway only. | "in laboratory conditions", "the proposed mechanism is" |
| Traditional use | Long-standing customary use with no controlled evidence base. | "has traditionally been used for" |
A writer may simplify language. A writer may not promote a claim to a higher tier than its evidence supports.
Sources
- We prefer primary literature, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and regulator publications over secondary reporting.
- We cite only open-access sources, so every reference can be checked by any reader without a paywall or institutional login.
- We do not cite a study we have not read. Citing an abstract is not citing a study.
- Where evidence concerns honey generally rather than Mānuka specifically, we say so — this distinction is frequently elided elsewhere and it matters.
Safety and vulnerable groups
Articles touching a clinical application must carry the relevant contraindications rather than leaving them implied. Standing requirements: no honey for infants under twelve months; red-flag symptoms are routed to a clinician rather than self-management; interactions relevant to diabetes and to pregnancy are stated where the topic touches them.
We do not publish dosing instructions framed as medical direction, and we do not describe Mānuka honey as a treatment for any condition.
How articles are produced
Drafts are produced with AI assistance against an approved claim set, then reviewed by a human editor before publication. The review checks claims against their cited sources, checks that wording matches the assigned evidence tier, and checks that required cautions are present.
What “peer-reviewed” means here
It refers to our sources, not to us. The studies we cite have been through peer review and are published in the scientific literature. Our own articles have not: they are written and edited in-house, and no external expert reviews them before publication.
We are explicit about this because the distinction is routinely blurred, and because a reader deciding how much weight to give a page deserves to know which kind of review stands behind it.
Corrections
If we get something wrong we will fix it and say that we did. Substantive corrections — anything that changes the meaning of a claim — are noted on the article. Typographical fixes are made silently.
To report an error, use the contact page. Point us at the specific claim and, where you can, the source that contradicts it.
Independence
We accept no pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and no payment in exchange for coverage or for a particular conclusion. Our funding and any commercial relationships are disclosed on the about page.
Last updated 10 August 2026.