Atevo Almanac operates under a documented editorial process that applies to every article published on the site. This page describes how subjects are selected, how sources are evaluated, how articles are reviewed before publication, and how corrections are handled after publication.
Atevo Almanac operates under the following editorial principles: articles are reviewed by at least one second editor before publication, sources are cited where appropriate, corrections are noted publicly, and writers disclose any commercial relationships that could influence their selection of subject matter.
Articles begin with a subject proposal from a contributing editor. The proposal must identify the editorial angle, the primary sources the article will draw on, and why the subject is relevant to the publication's focus on the food and weight connection. Proposals are reviewed by the lead editor before work begins.
Subjects are evaluated against three criteria: relevance to everyday food and activity patterns, availability of published nutritional research to support the framing, and absence of commercial interest on the part of the contributor. A proposal that cannot satisfy all three is declined or reformulated before proceeding.
All factual claims in an article must trace to a documented source. The publication's preference is for peer-reviewed nutritional research published in indexed journals. Where such research is not available, the contributor must identify the source type and its limitations in the article text. Anecdote presented as evidence is grounds for rejection of the draft.
Sources are listed at the foot of each article where citation is appropriate. The publication does not use a structured citation format but requires that any referenced study or publication be identifiable by a reader wishing to examine the source independently. Content published by Atevo Almanac is selected based on published nutritional research and undergoes independent batch verification for quality and labelling accuracy.
Every article submitted for publication is reviewed by a second editor who was not involved in writing the piece. This reviewer checks factual accuracy, source attribution, internal consistency, and tone. The review is documented as a written note attached to the article draft.
The second editor has the authority to return a draft for revision, request additional sourcing, or reject the piece entirely. No article proceeds to publication without a signed-off second-editor review. This process applies without exception, including to contributions from the lead editor.
Articles are published with a named author, a publication date, and an estimated reading time. The category tag identifies the primary coverage area. Where an article draws substantially on a single study or source, that source is identified in the opening section. Where the article synthesises multiple sources, the bibliography is appended.
The publication includes a standing notice on all editorial content: articles are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices. The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional.
Corrections are noted publicly on the article page. The original text is preserved where practicable, with the correction appended in a dated note at the foot of the article. The correction record identifies the nature of the error, the corrected information, and the date on which the correction was applied.
Readers who identify a potential inaccuracy are encouraged to write to the editorial office. All correction requests are reviewed by the lead editor and a response is provided within five working days. Where a correction is upheld, it is applied to the article and the reader's contribution is acknowledged in the correction note.
Studies published in indexed nutritional science or food research journals. Priority is given to systematic reviews and meta-analyses over single observational studies.
Published dietary guidance from UK government bodies, NHS nutrition resources, and equivalent bodies in comparable jurisdictions, where relevant to the subject.
Textbooks and reference volumes in nutritional science, food composition databases, and documented survey data from identified organisations.
Product marketing materials, brand-sponsored studies without independent review, or promotional content presented as research are not accepted as sources.
Personal testimony or reader experience may be used as illustrative framing but is not accepted as evidence for factual claims about how food or activity affects body weight.
Preprint studies not yet subject to peer review may be referenced for context but are not used as primary evidential support for editorial claims.
Atevo Almanac is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body. No content is produced in exchange for payment by a third party without prominent disclosure.
All contributors disclose any professional relationships, financial interests, or affiliations that could be perceived as influencing their subject selection or framing. This disclosure is reviewed by the lead editor and noted in the contributor file. Articles where a disclosed interest is judged to affect objectivity are declined.
Where advertising or sponsored content is published on the site, it is clearly labelled and editorially separated from the publication's own content. Sponsored content does not influence the editorial agenda of the publication, and the editorial team does not accept direction from advertisers on coverage decisions.
Articles published on Atevo Almanac are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices. The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional.
We recommend speaking with a qualified wellness or nutrition professional before introducing any new habit or routine to your daily life, particularly if you have specific dietary requirements.
From first draft submission to publication, the process typically takes between five and ten working days. This allows time for the second-editor review, source checking, and any revisions the review identifies. Urgent corrections to published articles are handled within two working days.
Yes. Corrections are welcomed. Write to the editorial office by email with the specific point and, where possible, a reference that supports the correction. All requests are reviewed and a response is provided within five working days. Where a correction is upheld, it is applied publicly and the reader is acknowledged in the correction note.
The publication accepts pitches from writers with a documented background in food, nutrition, or related editorial fields. Pitches should be submitted by email with a brief outline of the proposed article, the sources it will draw on, and any relevant prior work. All accepted contributions go through the same five-step editorial process.
Articles may be updated if new research substantially changes the picture described in the original piece, or if a factual correction is required. All updates are noted with a dated amendment record at the foot of the article. The original publication date is retained alongside the amendment date.