Corrections & Editorial Standards

Last updated: 16 September 2026

This is a publication about psychology, addiction, recovery, and the written life. People make decisions about their health after reading things like this. So the standards below are not decoration.

What we publish

Reported pieces, essays, criticism, and explanatory writing about clinical ideas. We label them so you know which you are reading. An essay argues; a reported piece establishes; an explanatory piece summarises evidence. We do not blur the three.

Everything is written by people. Where a piece uses an automated tool for anything a reader would care about, we say so on the piece.

Sourcing

We name our sources where we can, and say why where we cannot. Claims of fact are checked against the primary source, not against another article about it. Studies are linked, and we say what kind of study it is, how large it was, and what it does not show.

We do not report a single study as a finding. We do not use “cure”, “breakthrough”, or “proven” about treatment. We give absolute numbers, not only relative risk.

Clinical claims

Any piece that makes a clinical claim (about a substance, a treatment, a medication, a diagnosis, or a prognosis) is read before publication by a clinician on our clinical team, and checked against current published guidance. If guidance is contested, we say that it is contested and set out both positions.

Nothing in the publication is individual medical advice, and no article can account for your circumstances. If a piece describes a treatment, it says what it does not cover.

Where we write about suicide, self-harm, or overdose, we follow established safe-reporting practice: no method detail, no presentation of a death as a solution, and signposting to help.

Writing about people in treatment

No client’s material appears in the publication without their written consent, given at a time when they are not in active care, and freely refusable. Where we use case material, it is composite or de-identified, and we say which. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, including after publication; when it is, we take the piece down or remove the material, and we do not argue about it.

Pieces in this publication carry no names: not clients’, not clinicians’, not the editors’. That is a standing rule, and it applies to praise as much as to criticism. The practice’s own pages name the clinician who runs it, because a client should know who reads their work.

Independence

We take no payment for coverage. We do not accept gifts, trips, or hospitality from treatment providers, pharmaceutical companies, or clinics. If a piece has any commercial relationship behind it, it is labelled at the top, before you read it.

Our own clinical practice is a conflict of interest and we treat it as one. Any piece that touches on services we sell says so, in the piece.

Corrections

We correct in the open. We do not quietly edit a claim and hope nobody noticed.

Typographical fixes. Spelling, punctuation, a broken link, a formatting error: fixed without a note, because the meaning does not change.

Corrections. A factual error. We fix the text and add a dated correction note at the foot of the piece saying what was wrong and what it now says. The note stays for the life of the piece.

Clarifications. The facts were right but the wording misled. We rewrite and add a dated clarification note, in the same place.

Updates. A piece that is still accurate but has been overtaken by events carries a dated “updated” line saying what has changed.

Retractions. A piece whose central claim does not stand is marked “Retracted” at the top, with an explanation of why. The original text stays visible beneath, struck through, so the record is intact. We remove a piece entirely in two cases: where leaving it up would harm someone, and where a client has withdrawn consent for their material, which is theirs to do at any time and not ours to weigh. And even then a note stays at the URL explaining that it was removed and when.

Corrections are never made silently, and never backdated.

Raising an error or a complaint

Email iam@idinsayit.com with “correction” in the subject line. Include:

• the URL of the piece;
• the exact passage;
• what is wrong;
• what it should say, and anything that supports that.

You do not need to be the subject of the piece to complain about it.

What happens:

• We acknowledge within 48 hours.
• We investigate: reading the source material, going back to the writer, and where a clinical claim is involved, to a clinician.
• We give you a decision within 10 working days, in writing, with reasons.
• If we were wrong, we correct it, tell you, and where the error was serious we say so at the top of the piece rather than the bottom.

Right of reply. If a piece is about you and you say it is unfair, we will publish a substantive reply, edited only for length and law.

If you are not satisfied. Write to iam@idinsayit.com. Someone who was not involved in the piece will review it and give you a final written response within 30 days. That does not affect any legal right you have.

Reading our record

Corrections are permanent and public. If you want to know how often we get it wrong, the notes are on the pieces where the errors happened.