Editorial policy

• Applies to: Clindice, Foot Ankle Lower Limb (FALL) and Twikka
• Version: 1.1
• Effective: October 2026
• Next policy review: October 2027

1. Purpose

This policy sets out how we research, write, review and publish health content across Clindice, FALL and Twikka. It explains the standards we hold that content to, the laws and guidelines that apply to it, how we use AI tools in producing it, and the records we keep.

Our readers include patients, members of the public and health professionals in Australia and internationally. Many will act on what they read. Every article we publish must be accurate, balanced, based on current evidence and reviewed by a qualified health professional before it goes live.

2. Editorial principles

1. Accuracy. Clinical claims are supported by credible, current evidence and cited where appropriate.
2. Balance. We present benefits, risks, limitations and alternatives fairly. We do not overstate certainty or outcomes.
3. Independence. Content is not shaped by commercial interests, sponsors or referral arrangements. Relevant interests are disclosed.
4. Appropriate scope. Content is written for its stated audience. Patient content is general information, encourages readers to seek individual advice and does not replace it.
5. Transparency. We are open about how content is produced, including our use of AI, and about who reviewed it.
6. Accountability. Every published article has a named reviewer and a responsible publishing entity, every review decision is recorded, and we correct errors promptly.

3. Roles and responsibilities

Publishing entity. Each publication is published by the entity that operates it. That entity holds overall editorial responsibility for everything it publishes, including this policy, the review process, the audit trail and corrections.

Review panel. A panel of registered and credentialed health professionals (including general practitioners, podiatrists, physiotherapists, dietitians and exercise physiologists) who review and approve content. Each site publishes its review panel, showing each member's name, profession, qualifications, a short biography and any declared interests (section 8).

Reviewer. The panel member assigned to an article. The reviewer examines the version assigned to them and approves it only if, in their professional opinion, it is accurate and appropriate for its audience. Their name, profession and review date appear on the published article. Responsibility for publishing the content remains with the publishing entity. A reviewer reviews only content within their discipline and scope of practice. Where an article spans disciplines, a reviewer from each relevant discipline is assigned.

Content team. Responsible for research, drafting, revisions, sourcing and formatting, and for acting on review notes and reader submissions.

4. How we use AI

We use AI tools to assist with research and drafting. This includes searching and summarising literature, structuring articles and producing first drafts.

AI tools do not make editorial decisions. In particular:

• No AI-assisted content is published without review and sign-off by a qualified human reviewer.
• All references are checked by a human to confirm they exist and support the statement they are cited for.
• No identifiable patient information is entered into AI tools.
• Responsibility for published content rests with the reviewer and the publishing entity, not the tools used to produce it.

Some AI providers embed machine-readable markers in generated text to identify it as AI-assisted. We do not remove or alter these markers.

Disclosure

Our use of AI is disclosed in this policy, which is published in the legal section of each site alongside our terms and conditions and privacy policy. Each article shows who reviewed it and when, with a link to this policy (section 6.6).

5. Evidence and sourcing standards

• Sources must be current and reputable. Preference is given, in order, to clinical practice guidelines from recognised national and international bodies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, well-conducted primary studies, and recognised expert consensus.
• Where the most authoritative guideline is not the most recent, or where guidelines from different bodies disagree, the article reflects the current weight of evidence and notes any significant disagreement.
• Sources should generally be published within the last ten years unless they remain the definitive reference.
• Because our audience is international, articles note where practice, terminology, product availability or regulation differs materially between countries.
• Where evidence is limited, conflicting or emerging, the article says so plainly.
• Statistics, dosages, timeframes and outcome figures are checked against the original source.
• Medicine, supplement and device information is checked against current product information, with regional differences noted where relevant.

6. The review process

6.1 Research and drafting

The content team researches the topic, prepares a draft with references and assigns it to a reviewer whose discipline covers the subject.

6.2 Review

Reviews are carried out in the reviewer tool (section 9.2). The reviewer examines the substance of the article, not only its presentation, and completes the reviewer checklist (section 11) for that version.

The reviewer then either approves or declines the article.

6.3 Approval

The reviewer may make minor corrections (wording, clarity, small factual fixes) before approving. The version as it stands at the moment of approval, including those corrections, is the signed-off version and is retained in full. Changes of substance are not made by the reviewer; the article is declined and returned instead.

6.4 Declined articles

When an article is declined, the reviewer records what is wrong and what needs to change. The declined version, the reviewer's notes, completed checklist, reviewer and date are retained.

The article is revised or regenerated by the content team and goes back through the full review process. A regenerated article is treated as a new draft and reviewed in full, not only for the issues previously raised.

6.5 Version control

Approval applies to a specific version of the article. Any change to an approved article after sign-off, other than purely cosmetic formatting, creates a new version that must be reviewed before it is published. Earlier published versions are retained in the version history and are not overwritten.

6.6 Publication

Published articles show:

• the reviewer's name and profession, linked to their review panel profile
• the date of review
• the date the next review is due
• a link to this policy

6.7 Periodic review and expiry

Articles are reviewed at least every 24 months, or sooner if a relevant guideline, safety notice or significant new evidence is published.

An article that passes its review-due date without being reviewed is removed from public view until it has been reviewed and approved again. Its URL displays a notice that the article is being updated rather than returning an error. The article and its history are retained.

7. Reader submissions and corrections

Readers can report errors, raise concerns or make suggestions through each site. Every submission is recorded with its date, the article and version it relates to, the content of the submission, the action taken and the outcome.

• Material errors (anything that could affect a reader's health decisions) are corrected, or the article is removed from public view, as soon as practicable. A correction note is added showing what changed and when.
• Minor errors (typographical or formatting) are corrected without a note.
• Suggestions are assessed and recorded, whether or not they are adopted.

Corrections go through the same review and sign-off process as new content.

8. Conflicts of interest

Review panel members declare any personal, financial or professional interests relevant to their reviewing work. These are published in their review panel profile and kept up to date.

Before reviewing an article, the reviewer confirms whether they have any interest specific to that article. A reviewer does not review content where a conflict could reasonably be seen to affect their judgement, and the article is reassigned. These declarations form part of the review record.

Content does not promote specific products, services or providers except where the reason is clinical and is disclosed.

9. Records and audit trail

9.1 What we record

Each product maintains a permanent audit trail covering:

• Every version of every article, including drafts submitted for review, declined versions, signed-off versions and every version that has been published
• Every review, including the reviewer, the version reviewed, the date and time, the completed checklist, the decision, any reviewer corrections and the reviewer's notes
• Conflict of interest declarations made at the time of review
• Publication history, including when each version went live, when it was replaced and when an article was removed from public view
• Reader submissions and their outcomes (section 7)

Records are not deleted or altered after the event. Where a record needs correcting, the correction is added as a new entry. Personal data within the audit trail, such as the contact details in a reader submission, is handled in line with the Australian Privacy Principles and the GDPR, including rights of access and erasure. Where personal data is erased, the editorial record of what was submitted and what action was taken is kept.

9.2 Reviewer tool

Reviews are completed in a dedicated reviewer view that shows the article on one side and the checklist on the other. The reviewer ticks off checklist items, makes any minor corrections, records the decision and adds notes in one place, and everything is saved to the audit trail against that version of the article.

An article cannot be approved until every checklist item has been addressed, and it cannot be declined without notes.

10. Applicable laws and guidelines

All our content and processes comply with Australian law and with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), wherever the reader is located. Because our readers are international, we also take account of other rules that apply where our content is read, and our content is presented as general information rather than individual advice. This list summarises the main obligations and is not legal advice.

Australia

European Union

Publisher and journal policies

Where content is syndicated, submitted to a journal or used for continuing professional development, the host organisation's AI and authorship policies also apply and are checked before submission.

11. Reviewer checklist

Completed in the reviewer tool for every version reviewed. If any item cannot be ticked, decline the article and explain why in the notes.

Scope and conflicts

• The topic is within my discipline and scope of practice
• I have no conflict of interest in this article, or I have declared it

Accuracy and evidence

• Clinical statements are accurate and reflect current evidence and recognised guidelines
• Every reference is current, reputable, exists and supports the statement it is cited for
• Figures, doses, timeframes and outcomes match their sources
• Material differences in practice or regulation between countries are noted
• Uncertainty and gaps in the evidence are stated honestly

Safety and balance

• Risks, side effects, contraindications and red flags are covered where relevant
• Benefits and outcomes are not overstated
• Readers are advised when and where to seek individual care

Compliance

• No testimonials about clinical care, and no misleading or unreasonable claims
• Any reference to therapeutic goods is factual and not promotional
• No identifiable patient information

Presentation

• Language and depth suit the intended audience
• My name, profession and review date are correct

Decision

• Approved (including any minor corrections I have made)
• Declined, with notes explaining what is wrong and what needs to change