Editorial Standards

Tectonics Media Publications aims to publish accurate, clearly attributed, original and useful journalism. This page sets out the rules for our editorial workflow and the standards against which published material should be reviewed.

Accuracy and verification

Factual claims must be checked against reliable, identifiable sources before publication. Where possible, use primary documents and direct statements. Dates, names, quotations and figures require particular care. Unconfirmed claims must not be presented as established facts. If a claim cannot be verified, hold the story for review.

Attribution and originality

Credit reporting, research, photography, video and other third-party material to their original creators. Summarize in original language rather than reproducing substantial copyrighted passages. Link to primary sources and relevant independent reporting where appropriate. Obtain permissions or use correctly licensed media.

AI-assisted journalism

AI may assist with research organization, transcription, drafting, formatting, translation and production, but automated text and media may contain errors. Material generated with AI should pass factual, attribution, originality, rights and editorial-quality checks before publication. Do not invent quotes, witnesses, images of real events or sources. Clearly identify synthetic or illustrative media whenever viewers could otherwise mistake it for real footage.

Headlines and context

Use complete, precise headlines that match the underlying evidence. Avoid misleading thumbnails, clickbait, keyword stuffing, deceptive categories and headlines that promise more than the story delivers.

Corrections and feedback

Readers can flag errors through our contact page. Substantive corrections should be assessed promptly and clearly documented when made. See our Corrections Policy for the proposed workflow.

Advertising and affiliations

Sponsored material, affiliate links and commercial relationships should be disclosed prominently wherever they are relevant to the content. Editorial conclusions should not be misrepresented as independent when they are paid for.

These are the site’s published editorial requirements, not a claim that every historical article has already passed a retrospective audit.