Editorial standards

A useful answer

A piece should explain something, clarify a choice or offer an original story worth reading. Its title, description and imagery should match what the reader actually gets. Filling a calendar or attracting a sponsor is not enough reason to publish it.

Our subjects include adult THC product literacy and non-psychedelic functional mushrooms. General education must stay separate from personal medical, legal or dosing advice. Readers should be able to question a claim or decide against using a product.

Sources you can follow

We look for original research, official guidance and relevant product documents. A brand’s page tells us what the brand says; it does not independently verify the claim. Sources should be named and linked near the information they support.

Research needs its conditions. Species, preparation, participants, comparison and measured outcome belong beside a finding. A capsule study does not automatically test a coffee or gummy containing the same mushroom. When access is limited to an abstract or selected sections, the account should stay within what was actually read.

We distinguish a source’s finding from our interpretation, preserve meaningful uncertainty and identify fictional examples used to explain a calculation. Product labels, guidance and evidence can change. Fresh checks should address the claims in the particular piece, without suggesting that every page is continuously updated.

Product coverage and recipes

A comparison of labels and published documents is different from a hands-on review. The piece should identify which work was done. Taste, texture, convenience and personal effects must not be invented from product descriptions or stock photographs.

A recipe method can begin with documented ingredients and published techniques. “Kitchen-tested” means it has actually been cooked and the result recorded. We reserve that description for work that meets it. Infused-food content also needs an identified product, the relevant label and a clear jurisdictional scope. One product’s quantities are not universal intake advice or a verified finished-potency result.

AI assistance and responsibility

Afterlo uses AI tools for research support, organising sources, generating and editing text, creating graphics and building the website. AI has generated substantial article drafts for Afterlo. That assistance is not medical peer review or an independent source.

AI output needs checking against actual evidence. It must not supply an invented interview, quotation, credential or first-person experience. Substantial assistance should be explained in a relevant article’s method or source notes when it affects how the work should be understood.

Producing a draft and approving publication are separate decisions. The person responsible for publishing remains accountable for the content. This policy does not mean that every item has been reviewed by a medical professional or a specialist editor.

Bylines and images

A named author or reviewer must reflect actual contribution. Contributor biographies, qualifications and first-person accounts need a factual basis and the contributor’s confirmation. An assignment or a proposed biography alone does not establish authorship.

Illustrations and generated visuals must not be presented as documentary photographs, laboratory results or proof that a product was tested. Where a visual could otherwise be misunderstood, its role should be explained beside it. A photograph of a product, person or place does not by itself establish an endorsement or a reporting visit.

Commercial relationships

Payment, supplied products and commission-bearing links must be clear where they affect a story or recommendation. A disclosure page does not replace a disclosure with the relevant content. Paid work still needs accurate, supported claims.

Our commercial disclosures explain how paid partnerships, gifts, affiliate links and any Afterlo-owned interests should be identified.

Corrections and updates

Found something we should check? Email hello@afterlo.com with the article URL, the passage you’re concerned about and a source or explanation that helps us examine it. You don’t need to write a replacement paragraph.

We will examine the point against the relevant sources. If a factual error changes the meaning of a published piece, we will correct it and add a dated note explaining what changed. Corrections can apply to text, captions, graphics or linked sources.

Small spelling and formatting changes that leave meaning intact may be made without a correction note. New information may call for an update; a factual mistake calls for a correction. The distinction should be clear to readers.

A disagreement with an interpretation is welcome too. Explain which part needs another look and why. Our contact page also covers accessibility concerns, privacy requests and general questions.