Editorial policy

How we choose what to write about

We start from questions readers actually ask, not from keywords. Our editor reviews incoming reader email, search trends, and the recurring confusions we see in long-running threads on relationship forums. A topic is greenlit only when we believe (a) there is real confusion in the public conversation, (b) there is established research that clarifies it, and (c) we can say something useful that isn't already saturating the first page of search results.

How an article gets written

1. Source assembly.Before a single sentence of the article is drafted, the writer assembles a short bibliography of the books, papers and clinical frameworks the piece will rest on. That bibliography lives in the article's working file and survives to publication as the "Sources" section.
2. Draft. A human writer drafts the article in English against that bibliography. Claims that go beyond common sense must be traceable to a source on the list.
3. Editorial review. A second editor — the editor-in-chief on most pieces — reviews for accuracy of the claims, tone, and whether anything has been overstated. If a claim is contested in the literature, the article must say so rather than picking a side without acknowledgement.
4. Final pass.A final read removes phrases that sound clever but aren't actually supported, and softens any section that has slipped into advice-column overconfidence.
5. Publish.The piece goes live with the author byline, publication date, last-updated date, and the "Sources" section visible at the bottom.

What we treat as established vs. suggestive

Relationship science is not physics. Some findings (the predictive power of contempt in Gottman's longitudinal work, the broad stability of attachment patterns across adulthood, the neurobiology of involuntary signals like pupil dilation) are well-replicated and widely accepted. Others (specific claims about texting frequency, single-study findings on attraction micro-signals) are interesting but only suggestive. We treat the first kind as fact and the second kind as "some research suggests" — and we'd rather lose a reader than oversell a study.

What we will not do

• Accept paid placements from dating apps, coaches, or course-sellers. Our only revenue is display advertising.
• Invent statistics. If we cite a number, it traces back to a source you can find on our sources page or in the article itself.
• Pretend clinical authority we don't have. We are writers and researchers, not therapists. If a reader's situation calls for professional support, we say so.
• Use sensationalised headlines that the body of the article doesn't deliver on. The headline must be a fair description of what the reader will actually find inside.

Updates and revisions

Articles are reviewed at least once a year and updated when new research changes our reading of a topic, when a reader points out an error, or when our editorial team simply finds a clearer way to say something. Material changes are logged on our corrections page.

Use of AI tools

We use AI tools for translation into the nine non-English languages we publish in, and for light copy editing of English drafts. Every factual claim is researched and verified by a human editor, and every translation is reviewed before publication. For the full picture, see our AI disclosure.