Editorial Policy and Standards

This policy describes how content is planned, reviewed, published, and maintained on the platform.

The policy applies to staff editors, external contributors, peer reviewers, and any AI-assisted drafting tools used in the editorial workflow.

• Clinical and public health claims are supported by peer-reviewed literature, official guidance, or recognized reference sources.
• Citations are specific, traceable, and dated where possible.
• Uncertainty, limitations, and evolving evidence are acknowledged explicitly.
• Articles avoid promotional language and sensationalism.

Articles go through a structured review proportional to their clinical impact:

• Editorial triage for scope, accuracy, and structure.
• Subject-matter review by clinicians, pharmacists, or public health professionals, where applicable.
• Methodological or statistical review for quantitative content, where applicable.
• Final editorial approval before publication.

We do not claim that every article receives real-time review by every category of reviewer. Reviewer involvement is recorded in internal editorial records.

• Standardized sections (overview, evidence, considerations, references) where the content type allows.
• Consistent use of accepted clinical terminology and units.
• Plain-language summaries for non-specialist readers.

AI tools may assist with drafting, summarization, or retrieval. All AI-assisted material is reviewed by human editors before publication. AI is not used as a sole authority for clinical claims.

• Significant errors are corrected promptly and noted on the affected article.
• Substantive updates include a revised review date.
• Retractions, where necessary, follow principles aligned with COPE guidance.

Editorial decisions are the responsibility of the TICH editorial team, working with subject-matter reviewers. The Medical Review Board provides structural oversight of the review system.