Editorial standards

What an article must add

An article publishes only if it contributes something a reader cannot get by skimming the current top results for its subject. That contribution has to be identifiable in one sentence before the article is written, and it has to be one of these:

• A worked calculation. Real inputs, stated assumptions, and an arithmetic path a reader can follow and reuse with their own numbers.
• A reconciliation. Published sources that disagree, set side by side, with an explanation of why they differ and which applies when.
• A diagnostic path. Symptom to cause to remedy, where every branch is justified by a cited mechanism rather than by folklore.
• A mechanism diagram. An original drawing that explains how something works. Redrawing a manual illustration does not qualify.
• A process matrix. Published parameters organised for comparison, each carrying the product, revision and region it came from.
• An interpretation of published data. Taking a curve or dataset someone else published and explaining what it means for a practical decision.
• Original documented testing. Real measurement, recorded to the standard below.

Length is an output, not a target. There is no word count, no citation quota and no required section list, and an article whose outline could be swapped with another article’s has not earned its place.

What each source class can establish

Adding citations is not the same as sourcing a claim, because a citation count can be satisfied with blog posts. Sources are classified by what they can carry:

• Mechanism evidence. Peer-reviewed work and published standards. Textbooks are secondary literature: good for orientation and for finding the primary work, but a specific mechanism claim traces to the primary source where one exists.
• Product specifications. Manufacturer data sheets and service manuals, cited with the exact product, revision and region, because these documents are replaced in place. Authoritative for what a product is, and noted as non-independent where they also explain mechanism.
• Safety and regulatory guidance. Required, without exception, for any handling, dilution, storage or disposal statement, cited by product and revision date.
• Historical evidence. Contemporaneous documentation, patents and dated company material. Retailer and marketing histories are not historical evidence; where they are all that exists, the article states that the origin is undocumented rather than narrating the story.
• Practitioner observation. Community testing, trade articles and forum reports. Frequently the most current material in existence and genuinely useful, but it cannot carry a mechanism claim by itself, and individual reports are attributed as individual reports.

How sources are shown in References

Every article ends with a references section. Each source appears with a working link and a DOI where one exists. Where a source’s scope, revision or independence limits what a reader should infer from it, that limitation is stated there rather than left implicit.

The references section is the public record of what an article rests on. A reader should be able to open every cited document and check whether it supports the sentence that points to it.

Safety and original testing

Measurement performed by the publication is permitted and welcome, but only with the methodology, the equipment and its calibration status, the raw measurements rather than summaries alone, the number of trials and the observed spread, photographs of the setup, and a statement of what the test does not establish. What is forbidden is undocumented or invented testing: any claim to have measured, tested or observed without that record. Fabricated credentials are forbidden on the same principle.

Any statement about handling, dilution, storage or disposal of a chemical product must cite a current product-specific safety data sheet, by product and revision date. Safety guidance without that backing is not published.

What is not published

Articles here carry no individual byline. They are written and edited by brewedshot, and the publication is answerable for every figure in them. A name and a job title is a claim to authority a reader has no way to check, and it is not what should be doing the work. What should be doing the work is that every number is traceable to a document you can open yourself.

An article that fails any of the following is not published at all — no page, no entry in any list:

• A claim of testing, measuring or observing without the documentation above.
• A number presented as a measurement without a source.
• A table of results not traceable to published data or to documented testing.
• A citation that does not resolve to a real document, or that does not support the sentence next to it.
• A fabricated credential, title or implied expertise.
• Chemistry handling or disposal guidance without a current product-specific safety data sheet.
• Padding: a scene-setting opener, a conclusion that restates the introduction, or a section that exists to satisfy a shape rather than to answer a question.
• A central claim that cannot be traced to a source capable of carrying it.

Before an article appears, each factual claim is checked against the source it cites, each quotation is verified, and each source is confirmed to be of a kind capable of carrying the claim attached to it. Until that is done the article is not here at all. This is why the archive grows selectively, and why a subject you would expect to find may be missing. The absence is deliberate rather than an oversight.

Corrections

Errors are fixed in place and recorded. The procedure, and what to send, is on the corrections page. Reports go to contact@brewedshot.com.