Editorial Guidelines

How we ensure accuracy and maintain trust in science communication

Our Editorial Mission

Liquid Acid exists to make complex science accessible and accurate. Every article we publish follows these rigorous standards to ensure readers can trust our explanations of everyday phenomena.

Editorial Process

1. Topic Selection and Research

  • Reader-driven: Ideas come from reader questions, trending topics, and editorial team expertise
  • Relevance filter: Focus on everyday phenomena that readers encounter regularly
  • Scientific merit: Topics must have solid scientific backing, not speculation
  • Preliminary research: Initial source gathering before writing begins

2. Writing Standards

  • Primary sources first: Peer-reviewed research, official data, expert interviews
  • Expert consultation: Subject matter experts review technical content
  • Clear attribution: Every claim traced to its source with proper citation
  • Accessible language: Complex concepts explained without jargon
  • Balanced perspective: Present scientific consensus while noting areas of ongoing research

3. Fact-Checking Process

Stage 1: Writer Verification

  • All facts checked against primary sources
  • Claims verified through multiple independent sources
  • Quotes and statistics double-checked for accuracy

Stage 2: Editorial Review

  • Section editor reviews for scientific accuracy
  • Fact-checker independently verifies all claims
  • Sources evaluated for credibility and relevance

Stage 3: Expert Review

  • Subject matter experts review technical content
  • Feedback incorporated before publication
  • Final approval from Editor-in-Chief

Source Standards

Preferred Sources (in order of preference)

  1. Peer-reviewed research: Published in reputable scientific journals
  2. Official data: Government agencies, research institutions
  3. Expert interviews: Credentialed scientists and researchers
  4. Authoritative organizations: WHO, NASA, university research centers
  5. Reputable science media: Nature, Science, Scientific American (with original source verification)

Source Requirements

  • Minimum 3 sources: For any significant scientific claim
  • Publication date: Preference for recent research (within 5 years)
  • Author credentials: Verified expertise in relevant field
  • Methodology transparency: Studies with clear, reproducible methods
  • Conflict disclosure: Any potential conflicts of interest noted

Sources We Avoid

  • Non-peer-reviewed preprints (unless clearly noted)
  • Industry-funded studies without independent verification
  • Social media posts or unverified claims
  • Outdated research contradicted by recent evidence
  • Sources with clear commercial bias

Accuracy and Corrections

Error Prevention

  • Multi-stage review: Writer → Editor → Fact-checker → Expert → Editor-in-Chief
  • Source verification: Direct links to primary sources when possible
  • Expert consultation: Subject experts review before publication
  • Cross-referencing: Claims verified across multiple sources

Correction Process

When errors are identified:

  1. Immediate review: Editorial team verifies the error
  2. Correction publication: Clear correction note added to the article
  3. Transparency: What was wrong, what's correct, when corrected
  4. Process review: Analysis of how the error occurred to prevent repetition

Editorial Independence

Advertising Separation

  • Clear labeling: All sponsored content clearly marked
  • Editorial control: Advertisers cannot influence editorial content
  • Conflict disclosure: Any potential conflicts clearly stated
  • Reader trust: Editorial decisions based solely on reader value

Affiliate Relationships

When we include affiliate links (books, educational tools):

  • Clear disclosure in article and general policy
  • Recommendations based on editorial merit, not commission
  • No influence on content or conclusions
  • Alternative options provided when available

Ethical Standards

Avoiding Harm

  • Safety first: No dangerous experiments or activities
  • Medical disclaimer: Clear that we provide education, not medical advice
  • Responsible reporting: Avoid sensationalism or fear-mongering
  • Vulnerable populations: Extra care with topics affecting children or at-risk groups

Respectful Communication

  • Inclusive language: Accessible to diverse audiences
  • Cultural sensitivity: Respect for different perspectives and backgrounds
  • No condescension: Explain complex topics without talking down
  • Encouraging curiosity: Foster learning rather than discouraging questions

Quality Assurance

Regular Reviews

  • Monthly audits: Random article reviews for accuracy
  • Reader feedback: All corrections and suggestions reviewed
  • Expert panel: Quarterly review by external science advisors
  • Process improvement: Regular updates to editorial standards

Performance Metrics

We track:

  • Source quality and diversity
  • Reader engagement and feedback
  • Correction frequency and types
  • Expert feedback on accuracy

Contact for Editorial Matters

These guidelines are reviewed and updated regularly to maintain the highest standards of science communication. Last updated: December 23, 2026