Verification and fact-checking standards
Living with Superficial Siderosis and The Superficial Siderosis Research Alliance is responsible for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their articles. Articles are subject to review by the editor. In addition, medical information published on the organization’s website is reviewed by an SSRA Medical Advisory Board member. Living with Superficial Siderosis reviews and edits of articles that may include fact-checking are those presenting facts. Articles tagged opinions are clearly marked as such.
All submitted articles are edited for clarity and fact-checked from verifiable sources.
Editors who oversee digital platforms also may be involved in the presentation of stories and headlines, news alerts, and newsletters. The editors who review a story before publication and the extent of their involvement varies depending on a range of factors, including complexity, sensitivity, and the pressure of time.
Living with Superficial Siderosis and The Superficial Siderosis Research Alliance strives for a nimble, accurate, and complete news report. We endeavor to be promptly responsive in correcting errors in the material published on digital platforms. When we run a correction, clarification, or editor’s note, our goal is to tell readers, as clearly and quickly as possible, what was wrong and correct. Anyone should be able to understand how and why a mistake has been corrected.
Updating a digital report
Our individual articles evolve as we sharpen and improve them. Our readers expect that from us in the digital age. Therefore, it is unnecessary to put notes on stories stating that a story has been updated unless there is a particular reason to note the addition of new information or other change; the time stamp signals to readers that they are reading a developing story. However, it is necessary to use a correction, clarification, or editor’s note to inform readers whenever we correct a significant mistake.
If we are substantively correcting an article, photo caption, headline, graphic, video, or other material, we should promptly publish a correction explaining the change.
When our article is factually correct, but the language we used to explain those facts is not as clear or detailed as possible, the language should be rewritten and a clarification added to the story. A clarification can also be used to note that we initially failed to seek a comment or response that has since been added to the story or that new reporting has shifted our account of an event.
A correction that calls into question the entire substance of an article raises a significant ethical matter or addresses whether an article did not meet our standards may require an editor’s note and be followed by an explanation of what is at issue.
Other corrections policies
When an error is found by a reader and posted to the comment stream, the LWSS/SSRA team should indicate in comments that it has been corrected.
If we have sent out incorrect information in an alert, we should send out an alert informing people that the news reported in the earlier alert was wrong and give readers accurate information.
When we publish erroneous information on social networks, we should correct it on that platform.
Take-down (unpublish) requests
As a matter of editorial policy, we do not grant take-down requests, which should be vetted at the highest level. If the subject claims that the story was inaccurate, we should be prepared to investigate and, if necessary, publish a correction. In short, our response will be to consider whether further editorial action is warranted, but not to remove the article as though it had never been published. When we publish publicly available personal data, we only will review takedown requests if the person involved is under threat of physical harm because of the existence of the material.