How we fact-check.
Every piece here is checked against primary sources before it goes out. Here is exactly how that works, and how we handle it when we get something wrong.
Rigor is the whole point of this publication. If a claim shows up here, it earned its place by surviving a real check against the original research. This page lays out how that works, in plain terms, so you never have to take our word for anything.
Our standard
The Neuroscience Review holds itself to one rule above all the others. Say only what the science actually supports, and say it clearly. Every figure, every mechanism, and every claim traces back to a primary source, usually the peer-reviewed paper itself rather than a press release written about it.
That standard shows up in the small choices. When a study shows something in mice, we say mice. When a result is a correlation, we do not quietly turn it into a cause. When the honest answer is that nobody knows yet, we write that down too. A finding is only as strong as the evidence sitting under it, so nothing here gets oversold. No hype words doing the work the data should do on its own, and no headline that promises more than the paper delivers.
The bar we aim for is simple. A working scientist could read a piece here and not wince, while a curious reader with no background could still follow every step.
How every piece is checked before it goes out
Before anything publishes, it goes through a multi-agent web fact-check. Each substantive claim in the draft is pulled out and checked, one at a time, against primary sources found on the open web. Numbers, dates, names, mechanisms, and study details all get verified against what the original research actually reported.
- Every factual claim is isolated and matched to its source. If a claim cannot be backed by a primary source, it gets cut or rewritten until it can.
- Studies are read for what they genuinely show. Sample sizes, species, and limitations are carried into the writing, not dropped on the way.
- Language is checked for overreach. Anything that leans past the evidence gets pulled back to what the data supports.
- Sources are cited in the piece, so you can go read them for yourself.
Only after a draft clears that pass does it go live. It is more work than a quick rewrite of a press release, and that is the point. The extra step is what earns your trust, one piece at a time.
Corrections
We will get things wrong sometimes. Everyone who writes about science does. What matters is what happens next. When an error turns up, we fix it in the open rather than quietly editing the page and moving on.
Every correction is logged here with the date it was made and a plain note of what changed, so the record stays honest and easy to check. If you spot something that looks off, please tell us at theneuroreview@gmail.com. A good correction from a careful reader makes the whole publication better.