A precise account of how Iteranom Journal identifies, evaluates, drafts, fact-checks, and publishes content on everyday movement patterns and energy balance. These procedures are applied to every article without exception.
Iteranom Journal 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.
The publication covers a precise and bounded subject area: the relationship between everyday, low-intensity movement — walking, household activity, stretching, park-based exercise — and the observed patterns of energy balance in non-athletic populations. It does not extend to high-performance sport, structured gym training, or any subject area that would require the use of scope language outside that boundary.
Every article is traceable to a source. Where data is cited, the original publication is identified in the article text. Where an observation is the writer's own, it is framed as such. The publication does not present opinion as data, or extrapolate from individual case observations to population-level claims.
The process begins with identification of a relevant body of published research. Writers survey peer-reviewed journals, public-health guidance documents, and government-published activity data. A minimum of three independent sources is required before an article is considered viable.
Priority is given to sources published within the preceding five years. Older foundational research is accepted where it remains the standard reference in the field and has not been superseded. Sources are logged in an internal tracking document before drafting begins.
Each identified source is evaluated against a quality checklist. The checklist covers: the publication venue (indexed journal vs. grey literature vs. press release), the stated methodology of the cited study, the sample size and observation period, and whether the study conclusions are appropriately scoped.
Sources that are press-release summaries of unpublished data, opinion pieces without data citation, or single-author internet articles without disclosed methodology are excluded from citation. They may be referenced as context only, with an explicit notation that they do not constitute primary evidence.
The assigned writer drafts the article with source citations inline. The draft follows a standard structure: an opening lede that establishes the research context, a body of three to five sections each organised around a distinct finding or theme, and a closing section that notes the limitations of the cited research and the appropriate scope of reader interpretation.
The drafting process specifically prohibits the use of outcome language that exceeds what the cited sources support. A study that observes a correlation between step count and energy expenditure, for example, cannot be summarised as establishing a causative relationship. Writers are required to use hedged language where the evidence base is correlative rather than causative.
The lead editor reviews the draft for three categories of issue: factual accuracy (each data point verified against the cited source), scope compliance (no claims that extend beyond the publication's defined editorial boundary), and register compliance (no language that would imply outcomes beyond what the evidence supports).
Drafts with scope or register violations are returned to the writer with specific annotations. They are not published in their original form. The editing process is recorded in the internal version log. The final version number and review date are stored alongside the published article in the editorial archive.
A dedicated fact-check pass is conducted after the editorial review. The fact-checker reviews every numerical claim, every attribution, and every summary of a cited source. The original source document is accessed (not a secondary summary) for each citation. Discrepancies between the article's characterisation of a source and the source's actual conclusions are flagged and resolved before publication.
The fact-check record is retained internally for a minimum of two years from the publication date. This record supports the correction policy: if a post-publication correction is requested, the fact-check log is reviewed as part of the assessment.
Approved articles are published with a dateline and author attribution. The article is assigned to the relevant thematic category and indexed in the site's content archive. The version number, review date, and fact-checker initials are recorded in the internal log but not displayed publicly.
Post-publication corrections, if any, are applied within five working days of a validated correction submission. The correction is noted at the foot of the article with a date stamp. The original erroneous text is quoted in the correction note so that readers who encountered the article before correction can identify what was changed.
Articles published in indexed journals with a stated peer-review process. Includes sports science, exercise physiology, public health, and nutritional research publications. Full citation required including DOI where available.
Published guidance documents from UK government bodies, NHS guidance on physical activity, Public Health England reports, and data sets from the Office for National Statistics where they include relevant activity metrics. Full URL and access date required.
Reports and data from research institutions without commercial affiliations. Includes university-published activity studies, charity-sector research on physical activity participation, and epidemiological data from non-commercial bodies.
Research funded or conducted by supplement manufacturers, gym equipment companies, or any commercial entity with a financial interest in the conclusion of the research. Commercial research may be cited as context but is labelled as such and is not used as primary evidence for factual claims.
Personal testimony, social-media posts, blog posts without source attribution, podcast interviews without cited research, and content marketing produced by wellness brands. These may inform article topics but cannot serve as cited evidence.
Pre-print research papers that have not undergone the peer-review process are not cited as primary evidence. They may be referenced in a discussion of emerging research areas, with an explicit note that the findings have not yet been verified through the standard review process.
Corrections are accepted from any reader. To submit a correction, use the contact form on the Contact page and select "Article Correction" as the subject. Include the article title or URL, the specific claim you believe to be in error, and the source that contradicts it.
All correction submissions are reviewed within five working days. The review process accesses the original cited source and the original fact-check log. If the submitted correction is validated, the article is updated and a correction note is appended to the foot of the article.
The correction note includes: the date the correction was made, the original text, and the corrected text. No substantive claim is silently edited. If a correction substantially changes the meaning of an article, the revision is noted at the top of the article as well as the foot.
Iteranom Journal is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body. Articles published on Iteranom Journal 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.