Editorial Standards
Darlonev Notebook operates under the following editorial principles: articles are reviewed by at least one second editor before publication, sources are cited where appropriate, corrections are noted publicly, and writers disclose any commercial relationships that could influence their selection of subject matter.
This page documents those principles in full. It is updated when the publication's practices change.
The Foundation of Every Article
Darlonev Notebook is an independent editorial publication. Articles reflect the considered observations of contributing writers and editors. The publication is not affiliated with any food brand, supplement company, retail business, or governmental body. No article subject is determined by commercial relationships.
Articles are grounded in sustained observation rather than single-occasion reports. Writers maintain field notes on the subject under consideration for a minimum of four weeks before beginning to draft. This practice ensures that articles describe recurring patterns rather than exceptional occasions.
When articles reference published research, that research is cited in sufficient detail for a reader to locate the original source. Articles in Darlonev Notebook reference published findings from peer-reviewed journals and reputable institutional sources. Editorial selection prioritises long-running studies and replicated findings.
Writers disclose any commercial relationship that could influence their selection of subject matter or their framing of a subject. Such disclosures appear at the end of the relevant article. The publication accepts no advertising. Any commercial partnership is initiated by the editorial team and disclosed fully.
How We Use Published Research
Articles in Darlonev Notebook reference published research from peer-reviewed journals and reputable institutional sources. Editorial selection prioritises long-running studies and replicated findings over single-study reports, preliminary findings, or industry-funded research where the funder has a commercial stake in the outcome.
Articles reference findings published in peer-reviewed nutrition, public health, and related journals. Where a finding has been replicated across multiple independent studies, this is noted in the article. Where a finding is preliminary or from a single study, the article describes it as such.
Government nutritional guidance, NHS dietary reference values, and similar institutional frameworks are used as reference points where appropriate. The publication acknowledges that institutional guidance evolves and does not regard outdated recommendations as current.
Where articles are based on field notes and observational records, this is clearly described. Such articles do not claim equivalence with formal research. They are framed as considered observations, and their limitations are acknowledged within the text.
The publication does not cite press releases, brand-produced content, or anecdotal testimonials as evidence for nutritional claims. Where a finding is described as widely accepted, it is because it appears consistently across multiple independent, peer-reviewed sources.
The Review Process Before Publication
Every article passes through the following process before appearing on the site. No article is published without completing all four stages. The stages are not optional; they are part of the publication's commitment to accuracy and considered writing.
Writers maintain field notes on the subject for a minimum of four weeks. Notes are recorded consistently and honestly, including occasions where the practice observed did not produce the expected outcome. The field note period is the primary source of the article's observational content.
Claims that reference published research are verified against the original source by the writer before submission. The article's source list is submitted alongside the draft. No factual claim may be made on the basis of a secondary source alone; the primary publication must be consulted.
Every article is reviewed by a second editor before publication. The reviewing editor checks for factual accuracy, tonal consistency with the publication's register, and adherence to the editorial principles described on this page. The reviewer's identity is recorded in the publication's internal log. The reviewer is not the article's writer.
On publication, the article is archived in the publication's internal record with its source list, writer name, reviewing editor name, and publication date. This record is maintained for the life of the publication and is the basis for any subsequent corrections.
How Corrections Are Handled
Corrections to published articles are noted publicly at the end of the relevant article, with a brief description of what was corrected and when. The correction is made to the article's body copy as well as noted at the end. No corrections are made without a corresponding public note.
Where a factual error is identified — an incorrect figure, a misattributed finding, an outdated reference — the article is corrected and a note appended. The note includes the original text and the correction. Corrections are not made silently.
Readers who identify a factual error in a published article may write to us at [email protected]. Correction requests are reviewed within three working days. Verified corrections are applied and noted publicly.
Where an article's framing or register is updated after publication — for example, to bring it into alignment with a subsequent development in the published literature — this is noted at the end of the article with a description of the update and the date it was made.
The publication does not alter the substance of a published article in response to pressure from commercial parties, brands, or individuals who are the subject of editorial coverage. Substantive editorial decisions are made solely by the editorial team.
Transparency Statement
Darlonev Notebook is an independent editorial publication. Articles reflect the considered observations of contributing writers and editors. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial body, or governmental organisation.
The publication is funded through a small number of independent editorial partnerships. These partnerships do not influence article subjects, editorial framing, or the selection of sources. All commercial relationships are disclosed in full in the relevant article and on the About page.
We recommend speaking with a qualified wellness or nutrition professional before introducing any new habit, food choice, or physical routine, particularly if you have specific dietary requirements or are taking structured supplements.
The editorial team can be contacted at [email protected] with questions about the methodology described on this page.
External Advisory Contribution
Darlonev Notebook consults an external advisory contributor, Alistair Pembroke, on the factual accuracy of articles that engage closely with established nutritional research. His advisory role is limited to factual accuracy review; he does not hold editorial control over the publication's content, tone, or selection of subjects.
Alistair Pembroke has a background in nutrition writing and public health communication. He advises on the factual accuracy of articles that reference established nutritional research. His advisory contribution is disclosed on the About page and in any article where his input has been incorporated.
Frequently Asked Questions on Methodology
Articles in Darlonev Notebook are written by experienced editorial writers with backgrounds in nutrition journalism, food writing, and allied fields. The publication is not staffed by registered nutrition professionals in an advisory capacity, with the exception of the external advisory contributor noted on this page. Articles are editorial in nature, not professional nutritional guidance.
The publication accepts unsolicited submission inquiries. Please write to [email protected] with a short description of the proposed article and your writing background. All submissions are reviewed on an ongoing basis; we do not operate a call-for-submissions schedule.
Field notes are observational records kept by writers during a period of sustained attention to the article's subject. They are not formal research data, and articles that draw on field notes do not claim equivalence with peer-reviewed study findings. They are framed, throughout, as considered observations rather than established facts.
This page is updated whenever the publication's practices change in a material way. Minor editorial adjustments that do not affect the principles described here are not noted on this page. Substantive changes — to the sourcing standards, the review process, or the advisory structure — are documented here with the date of change.