Fact-Checking Policy

At Medslat, accuracy is a fundamental part of responsible publishing.

Our Fact-Checking Policy explains how we approach the verification of factual claims, evaluate sources, assess scientific evidence, handle uncertainty, and respond when information requires correction or clarification.

The depth and method of fact-checking may vary according to the nature of the content. A medical explainer, a wellness article, a report about scientific research, and a sports article may require different types of sources and verification methods.

Our objective is consistent: to publish information that is as accurate, clear, and appropriately contextualized as reasonably possible.

Learn Better. Choose Better. Live Better.

Our Approach to Fact-Checking

Medslat aims to verify material factual claims before publication using sources appropriate to the subject.

Fact-checking is not limited to confirming whether a statement appears on another website. The process may also involve evaluating the original source, the context of the claim, the quality of the available evidence, and whether the wording accurately represents what the evidence supports.

Depending on the content, our fact-checking process may include:

• identifying material factual claims;
• locating relevant primary or authoritative sources;
• comparing information across credible sources;
• checking dates, names, statistics, and other factual details;
• reviewing the original context of quotations and statements;
• assessing whether scientific findings are represented accurately;
• distinguishing established knowledge from emerging evidence;
• identifying important limitations or uncertainty;
• checking whether information has become outdated;
• reviewing claims that could be misleading without additional context.

The level of verification should be proportionate to the nature and potential impact of the information.

What We Fact-Check

Medslat may verify different types of information depending on the article.

These may include:

• health and medical claims;
• descriptions of diseases and conditions;
• symptoms and risk factors;
• treatment and prevention information;
• medication-related information;
• nutrition and wellness claims;
• scientific research findings;
• statistics and numerical data;
• dates and historical information;
• names, titles, and organizational affiliations;
• official announcements and statements;
• sports results, records, schedules, and competition information;
• quotations and attributed statements;
• product specifications where relevant to editorial coverage;
• other material factual claims.

Not every sentence requires the same level of verification. Greater scrutiny is appropriate when inaccurate information could materially mislead readers or affect health-related decisions.

Source Selection

The quality of fact-checking depends substantially on the quality and relevance of the sources used.

Depending on the subject, Medslat may consult:

• peer-reviewed scientific journals;
• systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
• clinical guidelines;
• government agencies;
• public health institutions;
• universities and research institutions;
• professional medical and scientific associations;
• regulatory authorities;
• official statistical databases;
• primary documents;
• official statements and press releases;
• official sports organizations, leagues, teams, and competition authorities;
• reputable reference sources;
• other credible sources appropriate to the subject.

Source selection is based on relevance, authority, recency, methodology, and context.

A source is not considered reliable merely because it ranks highly in search results or has been repeated by many websites.

Primary and Secondary Sources

Where practical and appropriate, Medslat aims to trace significant claims back to primary or authoritative sources.

For example, when an article discusses a scientific study, we prefer to examine the original research rather than relying exclusively on summaries from third-party websites.

When reporting official statistics, regulations, schedules, results, or institutional guidance, we aim to consult the relevant official source where reasonably available.

Secondary sources may still be useful for context, explanation, expert commentary, or broader reporting. However, significant claims should not rely solely on circular reporting in which multiple websites repeat the same unverified information.

Evaluating Scientific Evidence

Scientific research requires careful interpretation.

The publication of a study does not automatically mean that its findings establish a definitive conclusion. Different study designs provide different types and strengths of evidence.

When evaluating scientific or medical claims, relevant considerations may include:

• the study design;
• the number and characteristics of participants;
• whether the research involved humans, animals, or laboratory models;
• the duration of the study;
• the size and practical significance of the observed effect;
• limitations acknowledged by the researchers;
• possible confounding factors;
• whether the findings have been replicated;
• consistency with the broader body of evidence;
• whether the study establishes causation or only an association;
• whether the conclusions are stronger than the underlying data support.

Medslat aims to avoid presenting a single preliminary study as established scientific consensus.

Association Is Not Necessarily Causation

Health and wellness reporting frequently involves observational research.

When two factors are associated, this does not necessarily mean that one directly causes the other.

For example, a study may find an association between a behavior and a health outcome, but other variables may influence the relationship.

Where this distinction is important, Medslat aims to avoid causal language unless the available evidence reasonably supports it.

Headlines and summaries should not exaggerate an association into a proven cause-and-effect relationship.

Preliminary and Emerging Research

New research can be informative, but early findings may change as additional studies become available.

When reporting emerging evidence, we aim to consider whether:

• the research is preliminary;
• the findings have been replicated;
• the study has important methodological limitations;
• the results are consistent with previous research;
• expert or institutional guidance has changed as a result;
• additional evidence is needed before drawing strong conclusions.

Where appropriate, articles should communicate uncertainty rather than presenting developing evidence as settled fact.

Health and Medical Claims

Health and medical claims receive particular attention because misleading information may influence important decisions.

When reviewing such claims, we aim to consider:

• whether the claim is supported by appropriate evidence;
• whether risks and benefits are presented proportionately;
• whether relevant limitations are disclosed;
• whether general information is being presented as individualized advice;
• whether treatment claims are exaggerated;
• whether the content encourages unsafe changes to prescribed treatment;
• whether the language implies certainty that the evidence does not support;
• whether readers are given appropriate context for understanding the information.

Medical fact-checking and medical review are related but distinct processes.

Fact-checking verifies factual accuracy and supporting evidence. Medical review, where applicable, involves substantive evaluation by an appropriately qualified reviewer.

For more information, please read our Medical Review Policy.

Nutrition, Supplements, and Wellness Claims

Claims about nutrition, supplements, foods, diets, and wellness practices can range from well-supported information to highly speculative promises.

Medslat aims to scrutinize claims that suggest a product, food, diet, supplement, or lifestyle practice can:

• cure a disease;
• replace necessary medical treatment;
• guarantee weight loss;
• detoxify the body through unsupported mechanisms;
• prevent all cases of a disease;
• produce guaranteed or immediate results;
• provide universal benefits regardless of individual circumstances.

Where evidence is limited, mixed, preliminary, or dependent on specific conditions, the language of the article should reflect those limitations.

Statistics and Numerical Claims

Statistics can be accurate in isolation but misleading when presented without context.

When using numerical information, Medslat aims to consider:

• the original source of the data;
• the period covered;
• the population studied;
• the geographic scope;
• the sample size where relevant;
• whether the statistic is current;
• whether percentages are presented with appropriate context;
• the difference between relative and absolute risk where relevant;
• whether comparisons use equivalent measures.

We aim to avoid using statistics in a way that creates a materially misleading impression.

Quotations and Attribution

When Medslat uses direct quotations, we aim to preserve the intended meaning and provide appropriate attribution.

Quotations should not be selectively edited in a way that materially changes the speaker’s meaning.

Where practical, significant quotations may be checked against:

• original interviews;
• official transcripts;
• recorded statements;
• institutional releases;
• other reliable primary records.

If a quotation cannot be verified adequately, it may be paraphrased with appropriate attribution or omitted.

Sports Information

Sports content requires verification appropriate to the nature of sports reporting.

Depending on the subject, Medslat may verify information using:

• official league and competition websites;
• sports governing bodies;
• official team or athlete communications;
• match records;
• tournament organizers;
• verified statistical databases;
• reliable reporting from established sports journalism sources.

Rumors involving transfers, injuries, contracts, or other developing stories should not be presented as confirmed facts without adequate support.

Where information remains unconfirmed, the wording should clearly reflect that status.

Dates, Updates, and Time-Sensitive Information

Some information changes over time.

Before publishing or updating time-sensitive content, Medslat aims to check whether relevant information remains current.

This may include:

• medical guidance;
• regulatory information;
• statistics;
• product information;
• competition schedules;
• sports results;
• organizational leadership;
• official policies;
• other information that may change materially.

The fact that information was accurate at the time of original publication does not guarantee that it remains current indefinitely.

Headlines and Fact-Checking

Fact-checking applies to headlines as well as article bodies.

A headline should not:

• contradict the article;
• exaggerate the underlying evidence;
• turn a possible association into proven causation;
• present preliminary research as settled science;
• promise guaranteed health outcomes;
• create a materially misleading impression by omitting essential context.

An engaging headline should still accurately represent the substance of the article.

Editorial Review and Verification

The fact-checking process may involve authors, editors, and, where appropriate, subject-matter reviewers.

Responsibilities may include:

Authors checking the accuracy of information used in their drafts and providing appropriate supporting sources.

Editors reviewing material claims, sourcing, context, consistency, and potential areas requiring additional verification.

Medical reviewers, where applicable, evaluating relevant medical substance within the scope of their professional competence.

These responsibilities may overlap, but they are not identical.

General editorial review should not be represented as medical review unless the requirements described in our Medical Review Policy have genuinely been met.

Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Digital and artificial intelligence-assisted tools may be used to support aspects of editorial workflow, but they are not treated as authoritative sources for factual, scientific, or medical claims.

Automated output may contain:

• factual errors;
• fabricated references;
• outdated information;
• missing context;
• misleading summaries;
• unsupported conclusions.

Material factual claims should therefore be evaluated using appropriate sources rather than accepted solely because they were produced by an automated system.

Editorial responsibility remains with the people responsible for preparing, reviewing, and publishing the content.

Anonymous and Unverified Sources

Medslat generally prefers sources that can be identified and evaluated.

Information from anonymous social media accounts, unattributed posts, rumors, forums, or unverifiable claims should not be treated as established fact without adequate corroboration.

In exceptional reporting situations, confidential or anonymous sources may require different editorial consideration. Such information should be assessed according to the significance of the claim, the credibility of the source, the availability of corroborating evidence, and the potential consequences of publication.

Conflicting Sources

Credible sources do not always agree.

When reliable sources provide materially different information, Medslat may:

• investigate the reason for the discrepancy;
• consult additional sources;
• prioritize primary evidence where appropriate;
• explain the disagreement;
• communicate uncertainty;
• avoid making a definitive claim when the available evidence does not justify one.

The existence of disagreement should not be hidden when it is important to understanding the subject.

Corrections and Post-Publication Review

Fact-checking does not end permanently at publication.

New evidence may emerge, official guidance may change, or readers and experts may identify information requiring further review.

When a credible concern is raised, Medslat may:

1. review the statement in question;
2. examine the sources originally used;
3. consult additional evidence;
4. seek relevant subject-matter input where appropriate;
5. correct, clarify, update, or retain the content based on the findings.

For detailed information about how Medslat handles errors and corrections, please read our Corrections Policy.

How to Report a Potential Error

Readers, researchers, healthcare professionals, sports organizations, and other knowledgeable individuals are welcome to report potential factual errors.

Contact:

medslatcom@gmail.com

For general factual concerns, use:

[EDITORIAL] Article Title

For specific correction requests, use:

[CORRECTION] Article Title

For substantive medical concerns, use:

[MEDICAL FEEDBACK] Article Title

Please include:

• the article URL;
• the specific statement or section in question;
• a clear explanation of the concern;
• supporting evidence or authoritative references where available.

Providing detailed information helps us evaluate the issue more effectively.

Editorial Independence and Fact-Checking

Advertising, sponsorship, affiliate relationships, and other commercial arrangements should not determine whether a factual claim is considered accurate.

Commercial partners should not be permitted to require Medslat to publish unsupported factual or medical claims as independent editorial conclusions.

Where commercial content is published, applicable disclosures and editorial standards should be followed.

For further information, please read our Advertising Policy and Affiliate Disclosure, where applicable.

Our Commitment to Accuracy

No responsible publication can guarantee that every piece of information will remain error-free or current forever.

Medslat’s responsibility is to apply reasonable editorial care, evaluate evidence appropriately, communicate uncertainty where necessary, and respond responsibly when substantive errors are identified.

Our fact-checking approach is guided by:

• accuracy;
• appropriate sourcing;
• context;
• transparency;
• evidence proportionality;
• responsible communication of uncertainty;
• correction of material errors.

For more information about our broader standards, please read our Editorial Policy, Medical Review Policy, and Corrections Policy.

To submit feedback or report a possible error, visit our Contact Us page or email medslatcom@gmail.com.

Medslat.com

Learn Better. Choose Better. Live Better.