Our editorial approach
Virema curates, summarizes, and contextualizes public information so non-experts can understand policy options, regulatory distinctions, and the limits of the current evidence. We draw on primary registries and official sources, prioritize peer-reviewed literature where available, and link to authoritative institutional pages to support factual claims.
Our sourcing emphasizes registries and public datasets; for claims about clinical research we reference trial registries and established university or government resources, which is why we link to trusted pages such as peer review explanations on Wikipedia when describing how evidence is assessed, and we use official guidance like the U.S. National Library of Medicine's pages to describe registry practice (for background on how trials are catalogued, see the NLM).
How we vet information
- Cross-checks against registries and primary sources before publishing summaries.
- Link-first policy: we link to the original documents or official sites for claims.
- Conservative interpretation: we avoid overstating findings and note uncertainty.
For operational clarity we also maintain an editorial ledger that records major source changes; similar transparency practices are recommended by academic publishers and institutions such as the University of California's Open Scholarship Collective.