Editorial standards

Last updated: 14 August 2026

Trust should be visible in the work. These are the rules we hold ourselves to — including the parts we have not built yet.

1. Evidence before certainty

We show what is known, what is uncertain, and where judgement begins. Where the research is weak, contested or absent, we say so rather than rounding it up into confidence. A claim that cannot be supported does not get published.

2. Independence by design

Commercial relationships cannot buy a verdict, alter a score, or remove criticism. No advertiser, affiliate partner or sponsor sees content before publication or has any right of approval over it. Any relevant commercial relationship is disclosed on the page where it applies.

3. Useful in real life

Research is connected to decisions: what it costs, what it takes, what the trade-offs are, what might go wrong, and what is worth asking a clinician. Guidance that cannot be acted on is not finished.

4. Sources are shown

Substantive claims about health carry their sources. We prefer systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines from recognised bodies and well-conducted trials over single studies, press releases or secondary reporting. See how we research.

5. Health content is general, not personal

We publish general information and education. We do not diagnose, treat or give individualised medical advice, and we say so on every relevant page. See our medical disclaimer.

6. We correct openly

When we get something wrong we fix it and say what changed. See our corrections policy.

7. No invented authority

We do not claim awards, memberships, accreditations, endorsements, review boards or credentials that we do not hold. We do not describe content as medically reviewed unless a named, qualified reviewer has actually reviewed it — see our medical review policy, which sets out the current position honestly.

8. No AI-generated content passed off as human review

Where automated tools assist in drafting, summarising or checking, a human editor is responsible for every published claim. Automation never substitutes for the sourcing and review described above.

What we do not yet have

Long Bright Life is a pre-launch publication. We do not yet operate a named author and reviewer roster, a formal medical review board, or a published masthead. When those exist they will be documented here and on their own pages. Until then, we would rather state the gap than imply an authority structure that is not in place.