No promises
We do not describe any food, habit, product or treatment as certain to produce a result. Effects are described as associations or likelihoods.
Method
How we research, write and review
Health writing is only useful when readers can trust where it came from. This page describes the steps each article goes through and the limits we place on ourselves.
Step one
Choosing what to write about
Topics come from three places: questions sent to the editors, patterns in public health data for Indonesian men, and gaps we find when searching for clear explanations in plain language.
We prefer subjects where there is solid evidence and where understanding is likely to help someone have a better conversation with their doctor. We avoid topics that mainly invite speculation, and we decline to write promotional comparisons of products or clinics.
Step two
How we rank sources
Not every source carries the same weight. We use a simple order and say when we rely on something lower in it.
| Source type | Examples | How we use it |
|---|---|---|
| Official guidance | Indonesian Ministry of Health, WHO, BPJS Kesehatan | First reference for definitions, targets and local services. |
| Professional society guidelines | PERKI, PERKENI, Endocrine Society, American Academy of Sleep Medicine | Used for clinical detail and reference values. |
| Systematic reviews and trials | Cochrane reviews, large randomised trials | Used to describe what research suggests about effects. |
| Single or small studies | Observational and pilot studies | Mentioned with caution and labelled as early or limited evidence. |
| Commercial and anecdotal material | Product pages, testimonials, social media | Not used as evidence. |
Step three
Medical review and plain-language editing
Every draft is sent to a qualified reviewer who checks the facts, flags any statement that goes beyond the evidence and suggests where a reader should be advised to see a doctor. The reviewer's name and the date of review appear on the article.
An editor then reads for clarity. We remove jargon where possible, define it where it is not, avoid exaggerated language and make sure each article states what it cannot tell the reader.
- Numbers are given with their units and source.
- Ranges are described as reference values, not targets for everyone.
- Warning signs and emergency guidance are placed prominently.
Step four
Language rules we follow
No urgency
Articles are written to be read at leisure. We avoid pressure to decide quickly, and we do not use countdowns or limited offers.
No labelling of readers
We do not shame readers for weight, habits or past choices, and we avoid stereotypes about what men should or should not feel.
Step five
Dates, updates and corrections
Each article shows its original publication date and the date of its last review. We review articles at least once a year, and sooner when a guideline changes. When we correct an error, we note the correction at the end of the article and describe what changed.
If you believe something we have published is inaccurate, please write to [email protected] or use the contact form. We read every message and respond to factual queries within five working days.
For the full set of commitments, including how we handle funding and conflicts of interest, see the editorial policy.
Continue
See the method in practice
Read a recent article, or look at the people who review our work.