Editorial standards

What these standards cover

These standards apply to everything National Pharmacy Health & Leadership Alliance (NPHLA) publishes: NPHLA Intelligence briefings and digests, NPHLA Explains, trackers, research reports and datasets, glossary definitions, press releases and member stories. The rules specific to NPHLA Intelligence — including the full list of sources it monitors — are on the Intelligence standards and Source Registry page.

How sources are chosen

Official records come first: the FDA, the Federal Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed and other primary sources.
Every monitored source is classified by authority — primary authority, peer reviewed, professional association, reputable news, industry publication, company source or commentary — and listed publicly in the Source Registry.
Industry and news coverage contributes headlines and links only, for awareness and corroboration. We do not scrape or rewrite another publication’s article, and we quote only U.S. government (public-domain) text, with attribution.
Every briefing has a numbered Source File, and each fact in “What changed” points to the source it came from.
Every tracker entry records its source, source type, jurisdiction, dates and verification state. Glossary definitions cite at least one source before they can be published.
Research and data always state their origin: NPHLA original data, NPHLA analysis of public data, or third-party data credited to its owner.

How facts are verified

AI-assisted drafts are checked automatically before anyone sees them: facts without a valid source reference are removed, close paraphrase of copyrighted text is flagged, and sensitive subjects are flagged for an editor.
Dates that a model extracts from a document stay hidden until an editor verifies them; dates read directly from the Federal Register API are verified automatically. Countdowns are shown only for verified dates.
Research is published only with its methodology, sample and limitations. Survey results are published as aggregates above a minimum number of responses, and small breakdowns are suppressed so no individual can be identified.
Media coverage is listed only after staff open the link and confirm the article exists.
People are presented as verified experts only after their credentials have been checked, and the check is repeated every 12 months.
Where a page shows when it was last checked, an automated source check (“System checked”) is always shown separately from a person’s review (“Editorially reviewed”). An automated check never counts as human verification.

How AI is used

AI helps NPHLA find, organise and draft information from cited sources. It is an assistant, never an author or an expert, and it never invents quotes, people, data or outcomes. Every AI-assisted draft is currently reviewed and approved by an NPHLA editor before publication. The full rules are in our AI use policy.

How work is reviewed

Intelligence stories move through a recorded workflow — discovered, drafted, fact check, review required, approved, scheduled, published — and only published or updated stories are visible to readers.

Subjects that are always reviewed by an editor: drug-safety recommendation, dosing, treatment recommendation, regulatory interpretation, legal interpretation, scope of practice, new or experimental treatment, enforcement involving a named business, allegations, adverse events, patient-specific advice.
Published briefings are never silently rewritten. A proposed update waits for an editor’s approval and is then recorded, with its date, on the briefing’s public update timeline.
Glossary definitions are published only after an editorial review is recorded, and are re-reviewed at least once a year.
Press releases are approved on the record before they can be published.

Bylines and attribution

Every piece says who is responsible for it:

NPHLA Intelligence Desk — automated and AI-assisted work. It is never credited to an individual who did not write it.
Named NPHLA authors — only the people who actually wrote the piece.
NPHLA Contributors — approved contributors whose credentials have been checked; their disclosures appear with their work.

A reviewer is named only when that person actually reviewed the piece. Each briefing also carries an origin label: “AI-assisted · Editor reviewed”, “AI-assisted”, “Automated from official records” or “NPHLA editorial staff”.

Member and expert commentary

Facts and interpretation are kept apart: “What changed” lists sourced facts, while the “NPHLA takeaway” is NPHLA’s own professional interpretation, labelled as such.
Expert commentary is attributed to the named expert who gave it, with their disclosures. NPHLA never writes words for a person or presents AI-written text as someone’s opinion.
Member stories are published in the member’s own words, with the member’s written approval of the final text, and are labelled as member stories. Testimonials are published only with the person’s recorded permission and are never edited in a way that changes their meaning.
Where a quote has not been supplied and approved, nothing is put in its place.

Conflicts of interest and disclosures

Contributors disclose relevant financial and professional interests when they apply and with every contribution. Disclosures are shown on their profile and alongside their work, and the editor decides whether a contribution can proceed.
Members who contribute to NPHLA programs, content or decisions declare conflicts of interest, as required by the Membership Standards & Code of Conduct.
Experts listed for media comment state the topics they can speak on in their own words, and their professional affiliations are shown only with their approval.

Independence and sponsored content

Partners and sponsors do not see, review or approve NPHLA Intelligence before publication. Partnership does not constitute NPHLA endorsement of a company, product, service or clinical claim.
NPHLA Intelligence does not publish sponsored briefings. Any sponsored, paid or partner content published by NPHLA is labelled as sponsored, and sponsored media placements are labelled on the coverage page.
Partners are listed on our partners page only once a partnership agreement is signed, and their logos only with written approval.

Clinical and regulatory uncertainty

Evidence status is labelled where it matters: FDA-approved, FDA-cleared device, off-label use, investigational, experimental research, not FDA-approved, marketing claim.
Therapies in clinical trials are investigational, and device clearances are not approvals.
State-level information shows its jurisdiction, its source and the date it was last verified.
Where credible sources disagree, the briefing says so. “Signal strength” describes how much attention a topic is drawing, not the strength of the evidence.
Everything NPHLA publishes is professional information, not medical, legal or regulatory advice for any individual or organization.

Corrections

Substantive errors are corrected openly, with a dated note on the page explaining what changed. Clarifications are marked as clarifications. Corrections to public content appear in the public corrections log.

Keeping content current

Scheduled integrity checks look for content that may have become outdated, and staff decide whether to verify, update, rewrite or archive it:

briefings still labelled new, developing or breaking more than 21 days after their last update;
widely read briefings whose last update is old, and briefings about clinical trials whose status has since changed;
definitions not editorially reviewed for 12 months, and trackers not checked within their stated update frequency;
cited source links that stop working — links are checked automatically on a rolling schedule (each link at most once a week) and flagged when they fail;
expert credentials due for their yearly re-check, and contributor badges or testimonials of people whose membership has ended.

Contributor rules

Anyone can apply to contribute; there are no instant accounts. NPHLA staff verify identity and credentials before approving anyone.
Contributors agree to these standards, disclose conflicts of interest and cite their sources. Every submission passes NPHLA editorial review before publication.
Contributors are never asked to praise NPHLA, and contributing is never conditional on promoting it.
For contributors who are NPHLA members, the Contributor badge is switched off automatically when their membership is no longer current.

Questions and concerns

To report an error, see how to request a correction. For anything else about these standards, contact NPHLA; journalists can use the press contact form. The trust center answers common questions about NPHLA itself.