Editorial Policy

Editorial Principles

Every question, article, and scale on the Service is held to four standards:

• Clinical accuracy. Content reflects current consensus from the DSM-5-TR, board exam blueprints (ABPN, PRITE), and major psychiatric guidelines.
• Evidence-based reasoning. Rationales cite the underlying evidence — randomized trials, systematic reviews, or guideline statements — rather than appealing to authority.
• Independence. Content is not influenced by sponsors, vendors, or pharmaceutical relationships. We do not accept paid placement of clinical content.
• Transparency. Where evidence is contested or evolving, we say so explicitly rather than implying false certainty.

Authors and Reviewers

Our editorial team is composed of psychiatrists, psychiatry residents, and medical educators. Each contributor's role is explicit:

• Authors draft questions and articles within their stated area of expertise. Author bylines and credentials appear on each published article.
• Clinical reviewersare board-eligible or board-certified psychiatrists who verify clinical accuracy independent of the author. The reviewer's name appears on each clinically-reviewed article.
• Editorial leadership oversees the review process, sets style standards, and arbitrates disagreements between authors and reviewers.

Author and reviewer profiles include credentials, affiliations, and any disclosed conflicts of interest. We do not publish anonymous clinical content.

Review Process

Every new clinical item passes through a multi-stage review before publication:

1. Drafting. Author writes the item against a defined learning objective and references current literature.
2. Clinical review. A second clinician verifies factual accuracy, evidence support, and exam-relevance.
3. Editorial review. Editors check style, clarity, accessibility, and that any uncertainty is communicated honestly.
4. Pilot performance. New questions are surfaced to a sample of learners; items with anomalous performance metrics (e.g., extreme discrimination scores) are flagged for re-review before wide release.

Updates and “Last Reviewed” Dates

Psychiatric guidelines and evidence change. We re-review clinical content on a rolling cadence — minimally every 24 months, and immediately when a major guideline update or DSM revision lands. Each article and scale displays a last reviewed date so readers can judge currency at a glance. Content that has not been reviewed within the cadence is flagged internally for re-review before re-promotion.

Corrections Policy

We welcome — and act on — corrections from learners, clinicians, and reviewers. When an error is identified:

• Factual errorsin published content are fixed promptly. The item's last-reviewed date is updated, and a note explaining the change is added to the item's history when the correction is non-trivial.
• Disputed clinical points are routed to an independent reviewer who has not previously touched the item. If the dispute reflects genuine clinical equipoise, we update the rationale to acknowledge the alternative interpretation rather than picking a side.
• Question-bank items with persistent low discrimination (i.e., high-performing learners get them wrong more often than low-performing ones) are pulled from active rotation and reviewed.

Sponsorship and Conflicts of Interest

Psychpedia does not run sponsored clinical content. We do not accept payment to feature, omit, or shade any treatment, drug, or device. Our reviewers disclose pharmaceutical and device relationships at the time of review; reviewers with a relevant active conflict do not review content where the conflict applies.

User-Generated Content

Comments, notes, and discussion in collaborative study sessions are user-generated and are not reviewed by our editorial team. They reflect the views of individual users and should not be relied on as a substitute for authoritative clinical sources or for medical decision-making in patient care.

Reporting an Editorial Issue

If you believe a question, article, or scale is incorrect, outdated, or unclear, please tell us. We aim to acknowledge editorial reports within two business days.