Match the evidence to the question
Veterinarians.org has adopted these standards for its content. Clinical claims should draw on original research and veterinary professional guidance. A source about one species, product or test should not be used to make a broader claim it did not examine.
Read beyond the conclusion
Research notes should record what was studied, how it was measured and which limitations matter to the reader. The size of a study, its comparison group, funding and applicability may change how confidently its findings can be described.
Keep different kinds of evidence distinct
- A manufacturer’s statement explains what it claims; it does not independently establish that the claim is correct.
- A person’s experience may be useful context, but it does not show how a product performs for other animals.
- An expert’s interpretation should be attributed and distinguished from a study’s measured findings.
Make uncertainty visible
Where reliable sources disagree, explain the disagreement and its practical limits. Missing evidence should be described as missing evidence, rather than turned into a definite claim of benefit or harm.
Substantive claims should link to the relevant source near the text. Research records retain the connection between each claim and its evidence so an editor can inspect it.
Responsibility after launch
Responsibility for ongoing source checks and future updates still needs an operational owner. See the adopted editorial process.