Editorial standards and corrections

Keep the evidence type visible.

Primary research, systematic reviews, preprints, regulatory documents and company announcements do different jobs. We identify the type, date and origin of a source rather than treating them as interchangeable.

Separate findings from interpretation.

Reporting describes what happened. Analysis explains mechanisms and implications. Commentary presents a named viewpoint. Foresight explores conditional scenarios, not predictions presented as facts.

Follow the route to application.

Scientific promise does not establish commercial readiness. We examine the scale, comparator, limitations, costs and regulatory context relevant to a claim. Where information is missing, we say so.

Make interests clear.

Authors and guest editors disclose relevant affiliations and conflicts. Advertising, sponsored work and affiliate relationships are labelled. A commercial relationship does not determine our editorial conclusion.

AI assists; editors remain responsible.

Automation may support discovery, transcription, structured extraction and drafting. Publication requires human editorial review and source checks. Generated illustrations are identified and are not presented as photographs of an actual experiment or facility.

Correct the record.

Material corrections should identify what changed and when. Send a correction request with the article link, disputed statement and supporting source to the FoodEdge contact form.

Keep examples identifiable.

Worked scenarios, calculations and editorial frameworks are labelled. They support a review and are not presented as measured company results or validated predictors.