Last updated: [May 08, 2026]
Every claim we publish must be traceable to a credible source. This is not optional — it is the foundation of everything we do. As a psychology publication covering health-related topics, we hold ourselves to the standard that one fabricated statistic or misattributed study can permanently damage the trust our readers place in us.
Our citation tiers
We evaluate every source against a three-tier system before it appears in an article:
Tier 1 — Primary sources (used freely): Peer-reviewed journals, the American Psychological Association (APA), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the World Health Organization (WHO), Harvard Health Publishing, Mayo Clinic, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). These are the backbone of our content.
Tier 2 — Reputable secondary sources (used carefully): Harvard Business Review, UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, and academic university publications. We cite these when they add meaningful context, but we verify their underlying research independently before doing so.
Tier 3 — Industry publications (research only, never cited): Competitor publications such as Psychology Today, Verywell Mind, and Healthline. We may read them during research, but we never cite them as sources. Instead, we trace any claims back to the original study and cite that directly.
Our verification process
Before any article is published, every factual claim passes through this checklist:
- Does the study actually exist? We search for the DOI or title directly. We never rely on AI-generated citations, which are frequently fabricated.
- Does the study say what we claim it says? We read the abstract and relevant sections — not just a secondhand summary — to confirm our characterization is accurate.
- Is the research current? We avoid citing outdated data unless it remains the most authoritative source on the topic. When older research is used, we note the date clearly.
- Is the sample representative? A study of 30 university students does not support the claim that “research shows” something about the general population. We note limitations when they matter.
- Does the expert actually hold the credentials we attribute to them? We verify names, titles, and institutional affiliations before quoting any professional.
When we get it wrong
If a factual error is identified after publication — by a reader, a researcher, or through our own review — we correct it promptly and transparently. See our Corrections Policy for how we handle errors. We welcome factual corrections at officialpsychnerd@gmail.com.