1. A finding is not an interpretation
We distinguish what was observed, how it is interpreted and what conclusion is warranted.
2. Correlation is not automatically causation
Observational associations are reported as associations. Causal language requires a design and evidence capable of supporting it.
3. Sources carry different weight
We prefer primary documentation, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, strong peer-reviewed work and official statistics. Link count is not a substitute for quality.
4. A number needs a denominator
We state the population, period and country and, where relevant, both absolute and relative change. A model, estimate, scenario and observation are not synonyms.
5. A headline cannot be less true than the article
A strong headline may use a paradox or a precise question. It should not rely on an unsupported superlative.
6. We state the limits
Major analyses explain what the evidence supports, what it does not, and what future data would weaken the main conclusion.
7. Corrections remain visible
The original publication date stays separate from updates. Material factual corrections appear in a correction history.
8. A metaphor is not a mechanism
We use accessible images without presenting them as a neuroscientific, psychological or legal test.