This page explains how MedPublica verifies contributors, evaluates medical content, distinguishes editorial review from formal peer review, manages conflicts and AI use, and corrects or withdraws published material.
These standards apply to contributors, editors, reviewers, Chief Editors, administrators, sponsors and anyone involved in MedPublica publishing decisions.
Last updated: 23 July 2026
MedPublica is a medical publishing and professional-portfolio platform for medical students, doctors and other eligible healthcare contributors. These standards govern submitted Articles, public contributor profiles, editorial decisions, review labels, corrections and commercial relationships.
MedPublica publishes educational information for general and professional readers. Content is not a substitute for diagnosis, treatment, emergency care or an individual clinician–patient relationship. The separate Medical Disclaimer also applies.
MedPublica is not currently presented as a conventional academic journal. Unless an Article explicitly states otherwise, publication does not mean formal external peer review, specialist endorsement or adoption as a clinical guideline.
MedPublica may publish evidence-informed explainers, educational reviews, professional perspectives, career or training content, public-health information and other medical writing appropriate to its readers.
We may decline content that is outside scope, primarily promotional, unsafe, unsupported, misleading, duplicative, unlawfully copied, generated without accountable human oversight, or likely to expose private patient information.
Original clinical research, case reports and patient-derived material may be declined when ethical approval, consent, study registration, reporting standards or other governance cannot be adequately verified.
Editorial decisions are based on relevance, clarity, evidence quality, originality, reader value, safety, legal and ethical considerations, and fit with MedPublica’s purpose.
Contributors, advertisers, sponsors, donors, partners, platform owners and commercial relationships must not control the acceptance, rejection, wording, reviewer selection or correction of individual Articles.
Editors may recommend approval, revision or rejection. Final publication authority rests with the Chief Editor or an authorised Administrator acting under the editorial workflow. No contributor or reviewer may publish solely because they authored or reviewed the submission.
Contributor verification is used to assess identity and declared medical, educational or professional context. Reviewers may examine submitted documents and account information through restricted systems.
A “Verified contributor” badge means MedPublica recorded an approved verification decision. It does not guarantee current licensure, specialist certification, clinical competence, accuracy of every future statement or endorsement of the contributor by MedPublica.
Public profiles are shown only when the account is eligible and the contributor has chosen public visibility. Profile fields remain subject to the contributor’s visibility choices and MedPublica’s privacy controls.
Every Article must have at least one identifiable human contributor who accepts responsibility for the submitted work.
Contributors must:
Guest, honorary, purchased or fabricated authorship is prohibited. Assistance that does not qualify as authorship should be acknowledged where relevant.
Medical claims should be proportionate to the available evidence. Contributors should prefer authoritative guidelines, systematic reviews, major evidence syntheses, primary research and reputable institutional sources where appropriate.
Articles must distinguish established evidence from interpretation, emerging findings, personal experience and opinion. Absolute claims, sensational framing and unsupported promises are not acceptable.
References must support the claim for which they are cited. Fabricated, irrelevant, inaccessible or misleading citations may lead to rejection, correction or withdrawal. Date-sensitive claims should be checked close to publication.
Editors may request stronger sourcing, clarification of uncertainty, removal of unsafe advice or additional review before publication.
MedPublica’s routine review process evaluates clarity, evidence, structure, originality, privacy, conflicts, safety and fit with the platform’s standards. The workflow may require multiple recorded reviewers and a final authorised publication decision.
“Editorially reviewed” means the Article passed MedPublica’s internal editorial workflow. It must not be interpreted as external academic peer review or independent specialist endorsement.
MedPublica will use a “medically reviewed” description only when a suitably qualified reviewer has specifically reviewed the clinical content for that purpose and the label accurately reflects the recorded review.
Public reviewer counts and labels should reflect actual, unique review records. Verification badges, editorial-review labels and publication status must not be fabricated or manually displayed without matching backend evidence.
Reviewers and editors must act fairly, confidentially and within their competence. They should assess the submission itself, not the contributor’s nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institution, popularity or personal relationship.
Reviewers must not review their own Article, submit duplicate reviews for the same round, misuse unpublished material, or use confidential submissions for personal advantage.
Where a reviewer lacks relevant expertise, has a conflict, or cannot complete a responsible review, they should decline or recuse. Editorial comments should be specific, professional and directed toward improving or safely resolving the submission.
Financial and non-financial relationships can affect—or appear to affect—judgment. Contributors, reviewers and editors must disclose relationships that a reasonable reader could consider relevant.
Examples include employment, consulting, honoraria, ownership, funding, gifts, paid advocacy, personal relationships, academic competition, institutional disputes and strongly held roles connected to the subject.
Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a submission or reviewer. MedPublica may publish the disclosure, request clarification, appoint a different reviewer, restrict participation, or reject the submission when the conflict cannot be managed.
AI systems and chatbots cannot be listed as authors or reviewers because they cannot accept responsibility for accuracy, originality, confidentiality or conflicts.
Contributors remain fully responsible for any text, images, references, analysis or edits created with AI assistance. Meaningful use should be disclosed when it could affect how readers or editors assess the work. AI output must be checked for fabricated references, plagiarism, bias, unsafe advice and factual errors.
Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential submissions, verification documents or private contributor data into external AI systems unless confidentiality, author permission and data protection are assured.
MedPublica may use automated tools for screening or operational assistance, but publication decisions require accountable human oversight.
Patient names, faces, registration numbers, contact details, dates, rare combinations of facts and other identifying information must not be published without an appropriate lawful and ethical basis.
Where identifiable patient material is necessary, the contributor must obtain and retain valid written consent suitable for online publication and disclose that consent to MedPublica when requested. Removing a name alone may not adequately de-identify a case.
Do not submit medical records, prescriptions, laboratory reports, scans or photographs containing unnecessary identifiers. MedPublica may redact, reject, restrict or remove material to protect patients and other individuals.
Submissions must be original or lawfully reused with clear attribution and any required permission. Copying, close paraphrasing, fabricated quotations, manipulated evidence, duplicate publication and undisclosed recycled work are prohibited.
Contributors must have the right to submit all text, tables, figures, photographs and other media. A citation does not replace permission where permission is legally required.
MedPublica may use plagiarism, similarity, image or reference checks. Suspected misconduct may lead to clarification requests, rejection, correction, retraction, account restriction or referral to an institution where appropriate.
Readers and contributors may report suspected errors through contact@medpublica.com. Please include the Article URL, the specific concern and supporting evidence.
Spelling, formatting, broken links and other changes that do not alter meaning may be corrected without a separate notice.
When a factual or medical correction changes meaning, interpretation or reader safety, MedPublica should update the Article, preserve the last-updated date and provide a visible correction explanation appropriate to the significance of the change.
MedPublica may add a temporary notice while serious reliability, ethical or authorship concerns are investigated.
Content may be retracted when findings or central claims are unreliable because of major error, misconduct, plagiarism, fabricated evidence or other serious failure. Where feasible, the original URL should remain with a clear retraction notice rather than silently disappearing.
Immediate removal may be necessary for patient privacy, unlawful content, credible threats, urgent safety risk or binding legal requirements. A limited notice may remain when doing so is lawful and safe.
Concerns about accuracy, conduct, privacy, conflicts, review or editorial decisions may be submitted through the Contact page or by email to contact@medpublica.com.
A useful complaint identifies the relevant page or Article, explains the specific concern and includes reliable supporting information. MedPublica may request identity verification or further evidence before acting.
Contributors may appeal a rejection, correction, restriction or retraction by explaining the alleged factual or procedural error. Where practical, an appeal should be reviewed by someone not solely responsible for the original disputed decision. Repeated, abusive or unsupported submissions may be closed.
Advertising, sponsored material, affiliate relationships and other commercial content must be clearly distinguishable from independent editorial content.
Advertisers and sponsors may not select reviewers, guarantee publication, suppress criticism, prevent corrections or control conclusions. Payment, membership, partnership or donation does not purchase a verified badge, editorial approval or favourable coverage.
Material commercial relationships relevant to an Article should be disclosed to readers. MedPublica may reject advertising or sponsorship that conflicts with reader safety, law, medical ethics or editorial independence.
MedPublica may enforce these standards through revision requests, rejection, correction, removal, account restriction, reviewer recusal, workflow audit or other proportionate action. Serious or repeated breaches may affect future contributor or editorial access.
These standards may be updated as MedPublica’s services, risks and editorial capacity evolve. The date at the top of this page identifies the current published version.
These policies are informed by internationally recognised editorial principles from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics and World Association of Medical Editors, adapted to MedPublica’s present scope. MedPublica does not claim membership, accreditation or formal endorsement by those organisations.
Editorial and correction concerns: contact@medpublica.com.
