Every judgment,
open to scrutiny.
Content, evidence and editorial accountability, made visible.
These principles guide how we select sources, explain research and present conclusions. Readers should be able to trace a statement to its source and understand the context in which it applies.
Research sources
Trace original research relevant to the question and consider appropriate evidence syntheses. Assessment examines methods, participants, findings and limitations, with source access documented in the record.
Research interpretation states the search scope and selection rationale, including uncertainty and findings that do not support expectations. Systematic reviews additionally report systematic searches, eligibility and synthesis methods; PRISMA guides their reporting.
PRISMA reporting guidelinesInterpretation
Distinguish association from causation, mechanisms from effects in humans, and ingredient studies from finished-product studies. Specify the population, intervention, comparison, outcome and observation period; avoid unsupported generalisation across populations or products.
Scientific concepts, research interpretations and TAP project models are labelled separately. Educational illustrations document their assumptions and purpose; original project concepts state their definitions and theoretical sources.
Read the A–D grading methodReview and accountability
Scientific review applies to a specific piece and version. Reviewed pieces identify the reviewer, relevant expertise and actual review date. Author information and interests are disclosed with the content.
Each graded claim records an assessor and a separate verifier, sources, search information, domain judgments and limitations. Article review and the assessment of a particular claim are recorded as separate states.
Publication and scientific review are recorded separately. Each piece’s Editorial & review record states its actual review status. A scientific-review label is used only after that review is complete.
Five responsibilities. A record for each.
Our editorial framework separates content production, evidence verification, scientific review, methods review and AI assistance. These names identify roles in the workflow. Participation and completion are documented for each piece and version.
- 01
TAP Editorial Team
Editing & copyediting
Topic selection, writing, structure, language and publication preparation.
- 02
TAP Evidence Verification Team
Evidence verification
Original sources, numbers, quotations and citations, including whether sources support the statements made.
- 03
TAP Scientific Review Group
Scientific review
Scientific interpretation, disciplinary context and the boundaries of conclusions.
- 04
TAP Methods Review Group
Methods review
Search methods, eligibility criteria, risk of bias, evidence synthesis and assessment methods, where applicable.
- 05
TAP Research Agent
AI assistance
Assistance with research, extraction, comparison and drafting. Human checks are recorded separately.
A collective editorial byline identifies responsibility for the content. Completed human checks name the people involved, their relevant expertise and interests, the scope, date and content version. Scientific and methods review groups receive credit when actual reviewers have contributed.
Reader-facing editorial notes disclose AI assistance concisely. Detailed edition records preserve the system, tasks and any human checks. Source verification, scientific review and evidence assessment are recorded separately.
Updates and corrections
Content updates and scientific reviews record their dates, versions and scope separately so readers can trace each revision and review.
Record the date, version, substance and reason for important changes. Explain changes to conclusions or grades. When a citation error is found, check other pages that may be affected.
Corrections address changes to published definitions, findings, citations or translations that affect understanding. Significant corrections retain their date and reason so readers can trace what changed.
Submit a question or correctionInterests and funding
The project is founded and supported by Resilio. Articles should disclose relevant interests involving authors, reviewers and the research discussed. Citing a study does not endorse a product's effectiveness.
Project support, authors’ interests and funding of the original research are disclosed separately. Findings are interpreted through methods and results, with funding information presented as context for appraisal.
About this project