Editorial Standards

Process. Standards. Verification.

Harelona Notebook 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.

01 — Founding Principles

The editorial framework at Harelona Notebook was developed in response to a specific and observable problem: the body of published writing on eating and nutrition is dominated by approaches that substitute recommendation for observation. The publication was founded to hold the line between these two modes — to report on what the research shows, rather than to advocate for what the research seems to imply.

This distinction, which sounds simple in the abstract, is demanding in practice. Every piece of research implies something. The discipline required is to hold implications at arm's length, to acknowledge what a study shows without extrapolating beyond its actual scope, and to be transparent with readers about the limits of the evidence base being drawn on.

Writers at Harelona Notebook are expected to maintain that discipline throughout. The editorial review process, described below, is designed to catch failures — moments where implication slides into structured guidance, where a study's findings are overstated, where the register shifts from documentation to advocacy.

Annotated manuscript pages spread across a wooden desk under warm desk lamp light, editorial review in progress

Editorial review — Sekforde Street, 2026

02 — Publication Process

01

Topic Identification

Topics emerge from the editorial team's reading of published nutritional research, behavioural science literature, and the broader conversation around long-term eating patterns. A topic is selected when it meets two criteria: it has a substantive research base, and it is consistently misrepresented or underexplored in popular accounts. Topics are discussed in monthly editorial reviews before a writer is assigned.

02

Source Gathering and Assessment

Writers are expected to draw primarily on peer-reviewed research published in indexed journals. Secondary sources — review articles, meta-analyses, and evidence-informed summaries from recognised nutritional organisations — are used to contextualise primary findings. Where a claim rests on a single study, the piece must acknowledge this directly and note the limitations of relying on a single source.

Sources are assessed for: sample size and population relevance; study design and its implications for causal claims; recency (studies older than fifteen years require explicit justification); and the publication context (where a study was funded matters to the assessment of its framing).

03

Draft and Internal Review

A completed draft is submitted to the editor-in-chief and at least one second editorial reader before publication. The review process examines the piece for: accuracy of factual claims against cited sources; register (editorial documentation vs. advocacy — the latter is flagged and returned for revision); structural coherence; and compliance with the publication's standards regarding the framing of research findings.

Pieces may pass through multiple review cycles. There is no fixed timeline for this stage — accuracy takes precedence over speed.

04

Fact-Checking

Every factual claim in a published piece — every cited study, every attributed position, every statistical figure — is verified against the source before publication. Fact-checking is performed by a reader who did not write the piece. Where a source is inaccessible (behind a paywall that the team cannot access), the claim is either removed or its source limitation is disclosed in the text.

05

Publication and Disclosure

Published pieces carry a byline identifying the writer, a publication date, and a disclosure note where any commercial or institutional affiliations bear on the subject matter. No piece is published without a disclosure review by the editor-in-chief. The publication does not accept payment for coverage, and no piece is placed at a commercial entity's request.

06

Corrections and Updates

When a factual error is identified — whether by the editorial team or by a reader — a correction note is appended to the relevant piece. The note records what was incorrect, what the correct information is, and the date of correction. The original text is not silently altered. Significant structural errors may result in a piece being withdrawn; in such cases a notice is placed at the original URL explaining the withdrawal.

03 — Source Standards

Tier 1 — Primary

Peer-Reviewed Research

Original studies published in indexed journals, subject to peer review before publication. These are the foundation of any factual claim in a Harelona Notebook article. Findings are characterised precisely — not overstated beyond what the study's design supports.

Tier 2 — Secondary

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Reviews that synthesise findings across multiple primary studies. These are used to contextualise individual findings within the broader research picture. The scope limitations of the review itself are noted where relevant — not all meta-analyses cover the same population or time period.

Tier 3 — Contextual

Evidence-Informed Summaries

Position statements and evidence-informed summaries from recognised nutritional and wellness organisations. These are used for contextual framing only, not as standalone evidence for factual claims. The organisation's source base and editorial methodology are considered before citation.

04 — Editorial Independence

Commercial separation.

Harelona Notebook is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.

No article is commissioned by, or placed at the request of, a commercial entity. No coverage is exchanged for compensation of any kind. No writer is expected, requested, or permitted to favour a particular commercial product, brand, or organisation in their editorial output.

Where a writer has an existing commercial or institutional relationship that could bear on the subject of a piece, that relationship is disclosed in a note at the foot of the article. The editor-in-chief reviews all such disclosures before publication. Writers with undisclosed relationships that later come to light are subject to the publication's correction and accountability process.

Reader-supported model.

The publication operates without external advertisers. There are no sponsored posts, no affiliate revenue streams, and no programmatic advertising. The absence of commercial revenue streams is a deliberate structural choice, not a temporary state pending growth.

This model creates limitations — the team is small, production is slower than commercial publications, and some topics take longer to cover than they might otherwise. These limitations are accepted as the cost of structural independence.

Readers who contact the publication with evidence of commercial influence on editorial decisions are taken seriously. Any such allegation is investigated by the editor-in-chief and, where substantiated, results in a public response.

05 — Content Notice

Articles published on Harelona Notebook 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.

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.

06 — Process Questions