Transparent by design

How scientific content
is verified

The editorial rules behind publication identity, evidence labels, summaries, open-access links, safety language and visible corrections.

Policy version1.3Updated 7 August 2026

Source hierarchy

Identity first, interpretation second

No single database is treated as sufficient for every field.

  1. 01

    Identity and official record

    AVESIS and ORCID are used to establish publication identity, authorship and the official academic profile.

  2. 02

    DOI and publisher record

    The DOI and publisher page are used for journal, year, bibliographic identity and the version of record.

  3. 03

    Verification source and study model

    A publisher, PubMed or official institutional record, abstract or full text must explicitly identify the participants, model, samples or review method. Otherwise the record stays unclassified.

  4. 04

    Index metadata

    OpenAlex supports citation, abstract discovery and open-access metadata. Index values are dated and verified against the source when used editorially.

  5. 05

    Full-text rights

    A full-text button is shown only when a verified open-access or rights-holder source is available. Copyrighted files are not copied to this site.

  6. 06

    Safety guidance

    Health-safety statements require an explicitly named authoritative institutional or scientific source and are kept separate from product claims.

  7. 07

    Duplicates and canonical records

    Records with matching authors, title, year, journal and pages are merged only after DOI or publisher confirmation. Old URLs permanently redirect to the canonical record.

Evidence labels

Study types are separated—not ranked by appearance

Labels describe what was studied. They do not turn an experimental result into a recommendation.

01

Human study

Population, comparator, duration, outcomes and sample size must be reported; one study is not automatically conclusive.

02

Animal model

Supports biological plausibility in that model; it does not establish a treatment effect or safe dose in humans.

03

Laboratory / in vitro

Examines mechanisms, cells or microorganisms under controlled conditions; direct clinical claims are not made.

04

Composition / quality analysis

Describes chemical, botanical, microbiological or authenticity characteristics; it is not clinical effectiveness evidence.

05

Review

Synthesises the included literature; its conclusion is limited by the quality and scope of those studies.

06

Unclassified record

If the available metadata does not support a reliable classification, the study type is left unclassified rather than guessed.

Editorial workflow

Six checks before publication

01

Match authorship and record identity

02

Verify DOI, journal and year

03

Check open-access source and licence

04

Identify study design without guessing

05

Write a plain-language summary within the evidence

06

Add limitations, safety note and correction date

Correction log

Changes stay visible

Factual corrections are made without silently rewriting the record.

Seventeen duplicate records canonicalised with permanent redirects

Seventeen duplicate exports were merged after DOI, author, journal, volume, issue and page checks; every former Turkish and English URL now redirects to its canonical record. Fifteen additional records with a verifiable primary record or full text were source-audited and summarised. Fourteen records remain deliberately unclassified where the available source is insufficient.

Twenty additional records source-audited and summarised

The third audit batch separated 12 animal, three composition, three laboratory, one human and one review record. Twenty original Turkish plain-language summaries and verified official full-text links were added without copying rights-restricted files.

Thirty-eight additional study models source-audited

The second audit batch separated 18 animal, 13 laboratory and seven composition studies. Ex vivo human teeth, tissue and cell cultures remain laboratory evidence—not human intervention studies.

Twenty study models source-audited

Twenty previously unclassified records were labelled only after the source abstract explicitly identified the experimental unit or review method. The source and review date are visible on each record.

Four topic labels corrected

Four honey-focused records that had been placed under bee pollen were moved to Honey after title and subject verification. Bibliographic identity was unchanged.

Scientific Questions launched

Seven source-linked answers were published with visible evidence type, limitation and safety language.

Citation-tool cache corrected

A stale optimized JavaScript asset was replaced with a versioned file and live functionality was reverified.

Limits and contact

Correction is part of scientific trust

This website supports scientific literacy. It does not provide diagnosis, treatment, dosage or individual medical advice. Commercial product claims are not inferred from laboratory or animal findings.

To report a bibliographic error, broken source, rights concern or scientific correction, include the page address and the proposed correction.

Report a correction →