Recording the Process
How subjects are chosen, how articles are reviewed before publication, how sources are evaluated, and how errors are addressed after the fact.
Flarond Almanac operates under the following editorial principles: articles are reviewed by at least one second editor before publication, sources are cited where appropriate, corrections are noted publicly, and writers disclose any commercial relationships that could influence their selection of subject matter.
The standards set out on this page are not aspirational — they describe how the publication actually works. Each section covers a distinct stage in the editorial process, from initial subject selection through to post-publication correction. Readers who believe an article has failed to meet these standards are invited to write to the editorial team directly.
Flarond Almanac is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.
- —— Two-editor review before publication
- —— Sources cited; evidence evaluated for quality
- —— Conflicts of interest disclosed or disqualifying
- —— Corrections published publicly in the article
- —— No sponsored or commercially influenced content
Five stages from idea to publication
Subject Selection
Topics are chosen because they are genuinely relevant to the subject area and because the existing coverage leaves meaningful gaps. Trending subjects without substantive evidence behind them are generally avoided.
Source Identification
Writers are expected to identify primary sources — published research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses — rather than relying on secondary or tertiary accounts. Where only limited primary evidence exists, that limitation is stated in the article.
Drafting and Self-Review
The writer is responsible for an initial self-review against a standard checklist: are claims accurately attributed? Is the strength of evidence correctly characterised? Are limitations of individual studies acknowledged where relevant?
Second-Editor Review
A second editor reads the draft independently, checking factual claims against cited sources and assessing whether the overall framing is proportionate. This stage may result in revisions, queries, or — in rare cases — a decision not to publish.
Publication and Dating
Each article carries a publication date. If the article is subsequently updated — to reflect new research or to correct an error — a note is added at the top of the piece recording the revision date and reason.
How evidence quality is evaluated
Not all published research carries the same evidential weight. The almanac uses a working hierarchy when evaluating sources: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials sit at the top; individual randomised trials next; observational cohort studies below that; and case reports or expert opinion at the base. Articles cite sources in proportion to where they fall in this hierarchy — a single observational study is regarded differently from a well-powered meta-analysis.
Writers are expected to check whether a cited study has been independently replicated before presenting its finding as settled. Where replication is absent or contradicted by other work, this is flagged explicitly. The almanac does not present preliminary findings as established fact.
Pre-print research — studies not yet through formal peer review — is referenced only when the finding is significant and the context requires it, and always identified clearly as pre-print at the time of writing. If a pre-print is subsequently published with different conclusions, the almanac article is updated accordingly.
- 01 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses from peer-reviewed journals
- 02 Randomised controlled trials with adequate sample sizes
- 03 Large-scale prospective cohort and longitudinal studies
- 04 Published position statements from established nutrition research bodies
- —— Industry-funded research where the sponsoring relationship is undisclosed
- —— Animal studies extrapolated to human outcomes without caveats
- —— Self-reported observational data as sole evidence for causal claims
Independence and disclosure
All contributors to Flarond Almanac are required to disclose, before accepting a commission, any commercial relationships that could reasonably be seen to influence their handling of the subject. This includes paid advisory roles, ownership of equity in relevant companies, speaking fees from industry bodies, and ongoing consulting arrangements.
The editorial position is that significant conflicts are generally disqualifying rather than simply disclosable. A writer who receives payment from a company whose products or interests intersect with the article subject will not be commissioned to write that article, regardless of how the conflict might be disclosed. This is a stricter position than the minimum standard in many publications, and it is maintained consistently.
The publication itself carries no advertising, accepts no sponsored content, and maintains no affiliate relationships. Its funding comes from its readership. This removes one class of conflict at the institutional level, though individual contributor conflicts remain subject to the disclosure and disqualification procedure described above.
"A significant conflict is generally disqualifying, not merely disclosable."
— Flarond Almanac Editorial PolicyHow errors are handled after publication
Factual errors in published articles are corrected as soon as they are identified and verified. A note is added at the top of the affected article stating what was changed, what it originally said, and the date of the correction. The original erroneous text is not silently removed — the correction record is permanent.
Readers who believe an article contains a factual error are encouraged to write to the editorial team with a specific description of the claim they believe to be incorrect and, where possible, a reference to the evidence they consider authoritative. All such correspondence is reviewed by the lead editor.
The distinction between a factual error and a matter of interpretation is not always clear. Where a reader disagrees with an editorial framing rather than a specific claim, the almanac will note the disagreement and may publish a follow-up piece if the challenge raises a genuinely substantive point. Not every dispute requires a correction — but all disputes are taken seriously.
Send an email to [email protected] with the subject line "Correction: [Article Title]".
Include the specific sentence or claim you believe to be incorrect and, if available, a link to the evidence you consider authoritative.
The scope and limits of this publication
Articles published on Flarond Almanac are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices. The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional.
The almanac covers metabolic function, energy balance, meal timing, and related subjects with the aim of making the evidence accessible to a general readership. It does not cover individual routines, offer personalised recommendations, or substitute for professional guidance. The distinction between informative editorial content and personalised professional advice is maintained throughout.
We recommend speaking with a qualified wellness or nutrition professional before introducing any new habit or routine to your daily life, particularly if you have specific dietary requirements.
Flarond Almanac is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.
Content selection and independent batch verification
Content published by Flarond Almanac is selected based on published nutritional research and undergoes independent batch verification for quality and labelling accuracy. Writers are responsible for confirming that the studies they cite are accurately represented and that their conclusions are not overstated relative to the original research design.
Where research findings in the area of metabolic health are contested — as they frequently are, given the complexity of the subject — the almanac represents the range of current positions rather than artificially resolving the dispute. Readers should understand that nutritional science is a field in which today's well-supported finding may be refined or qualified by tomorrow's larger trial.
Writers check the publication date of cited research and note when a study is more than five years old, particularly in fast-moving areas where more recent evidence may have refined the picture.
Studies conducted in specific populations — athletes, older adults, individuals with particular health profiles — are flagged as such when cited, rather than presented as universally applicable findings.
Statistically significant findings are not automatically presented as practically significant. Writers are expected to contextualise effect sizes so readers can assess whether a reported difference is meaningful in everyday terms.