— EDITORIAL STANDARDS
How we work.
This page is the public statement of our editorial standards. It exists because publications that take themselves seriously publish their standards openly, and because it's the only way for readers to hold us to them.
Sourcing
Where a piece touches safety-critical work — anything where a mistake can cause real injury or harm — we cite primary sources by name, with links where possible. This includes pressure canning and food preservation, water treatment, electrical work, structural changes to buildings, and any first-aid or medical content.
Primary sources mean original research, government and professional standards bodies, named experts speaking to their specialism, and the publication's own contributors when they're the genuine specialist on the topic. Aggregator sites, anonymous blog posts, and AI-generated summaries are not primary sources and we will not cite them as if they were.
Where a piece does not touch safety-critical work, we relax the citation requirement but maintain the standard: every factual claim is something we can defend if asked, and we don't make claims we can't.
Fact-checking
Every piece is read by at least one person other than the writer before publication. For pieces in our specialist pillars — security, food preservation, off-grid systems — the second reader is a contributor with the relevant expertise. We will not publish technical claims that haven't been read by someone qualified to push back on them.
Pillar guides are revised on a published cadence, not retired and replaced. When a guide is revised, the revision date is shown at the top of the page and the substantive changes are summarised at the bottom.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we correct it on the page where it appeared. Significant corrections are noted at the top of the page with the date and a short description of what changed. Minor typographical fixes are made silently.
We don't memory-hole corrections. The original error stays visible in the correction note. If you've spotted something we got wrong, we want to know — please email editorial@survivalandprepping.com.
Voice
We write in calm, evidence-led prose. We do not use urgency hooks, doomsday framing, or rhetoric designed to make a reader feel afraid. We do not refer to "the experts" without naming them, and we don't claim that experts are hiding things from readers.
We use the editorial "we." We use sentence case in headlines, not title case. We spell numbers under twenty in prose. We use "despatch" rather than "dispatch." These are deliberate stylistic choices, not accidents — they are part of what the publication is.
What we will not do
- We will not publish content we believe to be false in order to maintain ideological consistency.
- We will not run sponsored content disguised as editorial.
- We will not write favourable coverage of a product in exchange for a sample, an affiliate kickback, or any other consideration.
- We will not platform people we believe to be acting in bad faith, even when their views align with ours on a specific question.
- We will not engage in the political tribal commentary that has consumed too much of this niche.
How to flag a problem
Email editorial@survivalandprepping.com with the URL of the piece, the issue, and any supporting links. We read every email. We don't always reply quickly, but we do read.
If a piece on the site has caused harm or could cause harm, mark the subject line "Urgent" and we'll prioritise it.