How we work
Editorial standards
What “evidence-honest” means in practice — how we source, grade, cite, and correct. These standards apply to everything we publish.
Independent
No institutional agenda, and no commercial allegiance. The EdJournal is supported by its advisory work and by readers. Where a funding relationship is relevant to a piece, we disclose it. Editorial decisions are made on what the evidence supports — never on who is paying.
Evidence and sourcing
We work from primary research wherever possible — peer-reviewed studies, nationally representative data, and the original source rather than a summary of it. Where studies disagree, we show the disagreement rather than average it away.
How we grade evidence
We are explicit about confidence. We say when evidence is strong, mixed, or emerging — and we do not present an emerging finding as a settled one. Qualifying a claim to match its evidence is the point, not a hedge.
Citation
Claims of consequence are cited, so a reader can check them. Where we can, we link to the source itself, not only to coverage of it.
Corrections
We correct errors openly and promptly. If you believe something we have published is wrong, tell us — a sourced correction is taken as seriously as any other kind of mail. Write to info@theedjournal.org.
Authorship and conflicts
Work is published under named authors. Where an author has an interest relevant to a piece, it is disclosed in the piece.
The neuroscience lens
Everything we publish is read through one lens: what the science of how people learn genuinely establishes, and what it does not. It is the perspective we write from, not a section of the site.