Editorial Policy

This page describes how the 24zdorovie newsroom works: the rules we use to pick topics, what counts as an acceptable source, how we correct mistakes and how we separate editorial from commercial content. We publish these rules so that readers can judge our work by the process behind it, not by our word for it.

Who produces our articles#

Articles are produced by the 24zdorovie editorial team. Behind every text is an editor who is accountable for factual accuracy: they gather the sources, check every claim against them and make the final call on publication.

Like any modern newsroom, we use supporting tools — from scientific-database search to AI — to find and organise research faster. But a tool is not an author. An editor checks every health claim against a primary source; anything that cannot be supported is removed. A specific person on the editorial team, not a program, is accountable for factual accuracy and the decision to publish. That is exactly why we set out our source requirements and correction process in such detail below — that is what our work should be judged by.

For higher-risk medical topics we bring in specialists. When a piece has been reviewed by a physician or another expert, their name and specialty appear in the reviewer field next to the headline. If that field is absent, the text has had editorial review only, and we do not disguise that.

How we choose topics#

We start from real reader questions: what people search for, what they ask about in emails, and which myths we keep having to unpick. A topic then passes three filters:

1. Is there an evidence base? If there are no reviews and no meaningful clinical data, we either drop the topic or write specifically about the fact that the data is missing.
2. Is it useful? We prioritise topics where a reader can actually change something, rather than merely learn a curious fact.
3. Could it cause harm? Where misread information could lead someone to abandon treatment or run a risky experiment, we either avoid the topic or write it with explicit warnings and clear guidance on when to see a doctor.

We deliberately do not publish crash weight-loss protocols, body-cleanse regimes, content encouraging people to stop evidence-based treatment, or any method promoted against scientific consensus.

Source requirements#

The hierarchy we follow, from strongest to weakest:

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Cochrane first among them.
2. Clinical guidelines and position statements from the WHO, NIH, NICE and national professional bodies.
3. Large randomised controlled trials.
4. Cohort and observational studies, always with the caveat that correlation does not establish causation.
5. Small pilot studies, animal work and in vitro research, used only to illustrate a direction of inquiry and never as the basis for a recommendation.

What we do not treat as a source: manufacturer press releases, supplement retailers, news coverage without a link to the original, social media posts, and expert opinion with no data behind it.

Additional rules:

• Links point to the original study or the issuing organisation's document, not to someone's summary of it.
• We state the year. Guidance from a decade ago may be out of date, so we check whether a newer revision exists.
• Where the evidence conflicts, we say so plainly instead of smoothing it over for a tidier conclusion.
• Every key health claim is collected in the source list at the end of the article.

Updates and currency#

Every article carries a publication date, and revised articles carry an update date. An update means an editor has re-checked the text against current sources.

We revisit a piece when a new systematic review or guideline revision appears, when the regulatory status of a substance or drug changes, when a reader reports an inaccuracy, and on a routine schedule for our most-read material.

If a revision changes the substance of a recommendation rather than just its wording, we flag it with a note in the text. We do not quietly erase the trace of an error: a visible correction is better than an invisible one.

Reporting an error#

Write to info@24zdorovie.com. The most useful message includes a link to the article, an exact quote of the disputed passage and, where possible, a link to the source that contradicts it.

We reply within a few working days. If the error is confirmed, we fix the text, update the date and, where the meaning changed materially, add a correction note. If it is not confirmed, we explain why and which data we rely on.

Editorial independence from advertising#

Editorial and commercial content are kept separate.

• Advertisers have no influence over the content, conclusions or assessments in editorial articles.
• Any paid placement carries a clear label identifying it as advertising.
• Affiliate links do not determine whether a product appears in an article or how it is rated. If a product does not work, we say so, regardless of any affiliate programme.
• We do not accept advertising for remedies without proven efficacy or for aggressive weight-loss schemes.

There is more detail on our advertising page. If you believe we have broken our own rules, tell us — that is worth investigating too.