Editorial Standards
Editorial Standards
Our questions must withstand questions.
Evidence and interpretation
We distinguish first-person testimony, verified documents, scientific research, historical records, original hypotheses, analysis and opinion. Readers should be able to tell which kind of claim they are reading. A person's experience is important evidence of what they experienced; it does not automatically establish every explanation of why an event occurred. A scientific paper contributes evidence; it does not settle every question about an individual life.
Accuracy and sources
Before publishing a factual allegation or technical claim, we seek appropriate sources and verify dates, wording and context. Scientific articles should identify research limitations and clearly mark developing models and hypotheses.
Fair opportunity to respond
When an identifiable person or institution is the subject of substantial criticism, our process should include a fair opportunity to respond to the relevant factual claims before publication, subject to safeguarding and other applicable considerations.
Children and vulnerable participants
The safety and privacy of children take priority over an interesting story. Sensitive details should not be gathered through ordinary public website forms. Publication involving a child requires appropriate consent, risk review and careful consideration of whether identification is necessary at all.
Interviews and photographs
We use approved interviews and photographs with appropriate rights and credit. Editing should preserve the meaning of an interviewee's words. We distinguish authentic quotations from paraphrases, reconstructions and hypothetical questions.
Conflicts of interest
Authors and editors should disclose relevant interests that could influence how a subject is investigated. A contributor's personal involvement can offer insight, but the evidence and editorial judgement require additional care.
Corrections and updates
We will acknowledge material errors and issue visible corrections with dates. Additional evidence may lead to an updated conclusion. Publication should not be treated as the end of an investigation.
Freedom to question us
Readers and participants may challenge our evidence, framing or conclusions. We aim to consider substantive criticism on its merits, regardless of whether it supports the original position.
The School of Abnormal is an independent educational research and publishing initiative. It is not a statutory inspectorate, law firm, medical practice or regulator.