Editorial Policy

Last updated: Oct 8, 2026

Here is what you can expect from every article on Biology Insights: who decides what we publish, how we judge research, what each article tells you, and how we handle health topics and mistakes.

Independence

Editorial decisions at Biology Insights are made by our editors. No advertiser, funder, partner or institution whose work we cover can see, approve or change an article before it is published.

A few people help check an article’s accuracy before publication. The author reviews the final text, an independent expert reviews every health and medical article, and people we quote can check their quotes. None of them approves the article.

Who owns and funds Biology Insights is listed on our About page.
We do not accept payment for coverage and do not publish sponsored content.
Advertising, where it appears, is labeled and visually separate from articles, and advertisers have no influence on what we publish. We do not run ads for treatments, supplements or other health products on health and medical articles.
An editor with a personal or financial interest in an article’s subject does not handle it. If no other editor is available, the interest is disclosed on the article.

How we choose what to cover

We choose research for its significance and the strength of its evidence, not because it comes with a press release or a dramatic headline. Editors weigh:

Evidence. Peer-reviewed studies come first, and findings that have been replicated or come from well-designed studies carry more weight. Preprints, which are studies posted publicly before peer review, never carry a health claim on their own.
Significance. We look for work that changes what is known or matters for health, the environment or policy.
Context. We cover a finding only when we can explain how it fits with the wider body of evidence and where the scientific consensus lies.
Usefulness to readers. We prioritize topics that help readers understand how living things work or judge claims they are likely to come across.

We seek out researchers and sources from a range of institutions, countries and backgrounds. We decline to cover findings we judge too weak to explain responsibly, even when they are widely reported elsewhere.

What each article tells you

Before publication, editors check each article’s key claims against the research it cites. Every article shows:

The article type. Explainers and Deep Dives describe what the evidence shows. Perspectives are labeled opinion pieces that argue a view. Q&As present an interviewee’s own views, edited and condensed. Field Notes are personal accounts of doing science.
The author, with a short bio describing their relevant background, and any financial or professional interests related to the topic, or a note that none were declared.
The strength of the evidence. Articles that discuss research say what kind of study it was and how large, whether it shows cause or only an association, whether the results have been replicated and, where risk is involved, the absolute numbers behind any percentage.
Sources. Links to the research cited, with full references at the end. Preprints are labeled as not yet peer reviewed. People quoted are named; we grant anonymity only when naming someone would put them at real risk, and we say why in the article.
Dates. When the article was published and when it was last updated.
Image credits and labels. Every image is credited. Illustrations and simplified diagrams are labeled, and AI-generated images are labeled and never used to depict real people, specimens or data.

Health and medical information

Articles on Biology Insights explain research. They are not medical advice and are not a substitute for care from a qualified health professional. Do not delay seeking medical help, or change a treatment, because of something you read here. In an emergency, contact your local emergency services.

Expert review. Every article about human health, disease, treatment or prevention, including Perspectives and Q&As, is reviewed before publication by an independent expert. Reviewers hold a relevant degree or clinical qualification, are not involved in the research discussed and declare any conflicts of interest. They check scientific accuracy. Their review does not mean they endorse the article’s conclusions or recommend any treatment. The article names the reviewer, their credentials and the date of review. If a reviewer cannot be named, we say so and give their field.

We describe what the evidence shows. We do not recommend treatments, doses, supplements or products for individuals.
We do not call early findings cures or breakthroughs, and we say plainly when results come from cells or animals and have not been shown in people.
Where the scientific consensus is clear, as it is on vaccine safety, we say so and do not present fringe views as an equal side.
We follow recognized safe-messaging guidelines when covering suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, and those articles include information on where to find support.
We describe health conditions, and the people who live with them, in accurate and respectful language.
When we learn of new evidence or guidance that changes an article’s conclusions, we update the article and add a note at the top.

Topics that need extra care

Genetics. We avoid “gene for” framing, report how much a genetic variant actually changes risk, and explain the limits of genetic tests and polygenic scores.
Ecology and conservation. We distinguish model projections from field observations and say when findings come from a single site, population or species.
Animal research. We describe animal studies accurately, including what the animal model can and cannot tell us about people.
Research with potential for misuse. When covering work on dangerous pathogens or toxins, we do not publish methods or details that could help someone cause harm.

Artificial intelligence

Articles, headlines and summaries on Biology Insights are written and edited by people. We do not publish AI-generated text, except as a labeled example when AI is itself the subject of an article.

Editors may use AI tools for support tasks such as transcribing interviews or checking spelling and grammar. A person checks every result, and editors are responsible for everything we publish.
AI tools are never used to fact-check, to carry out expert review, to summarize research in place of reading it, or to decide what we publish.
Editors do not enter embargoed research or confidential information into AI tools.
If a contributor used AI tools for anything beyond spelling, grammar or translation help, the article says so.

Corrections and updates

If you think an article contains an error, email [email protected] with the article’s link and what you believe is wrong. We acknowledge every report within five business days. Errors that could affect someone’s health or safety are corrected as soon as they are confirmed.

Changes after publication are handled as follows:

Minor fixes, such as typos, broken links and formatting, are made without a note.
Clarification. Wording that could mislead is made clearer, with a dated note at the top of the article.
Correction. A factual error is fixed, with a dated note at the top explaining what changed. We never make substantive changes silently.
Update. New research or developments are added, and the article is marked as updated with the date.
Retraction. An article with serious errors, or one affected by an undisclosed conflict of interest, is retracted. It stays online with a notice at the top explaining why.
Removal. We take an article down only for legal reasons or to protect someone’s safety or privacy. The editor in chief makes that decision, and a notice remains in the article’s place. We do not remove articles because someone finds them embarrassing.

If research an article relies on is later corrected or retracted by its journal, we update or annotate the article once we learn of it.

Feedback and complaints

If you think we have fallen short of this policy, email [email protected], with a link to the article where relevant. Where possible, an editor who did not handle the article reviews the complaint, and we aim to reply within 10 business days. If you are not satisfied with the reply, you can ask the editor in chief to review it.

If your research or your words appear in an article and you believe they were misrepresented, write to the same address. You can ask for a correction or, where appropriate, a short response published with the article.

About this policy

We review this policy at least once a year and change the date at the top whenever it is updated.

Contact

For	Contact
Errors, complaints and concerns about how research or quotes were represented	[email protected]
General questions	[email protected]
Writing for Biology Insights	[email protected] (see Information for Contributors)