PreachBio is an independent biology and botany learning resource. This policy explains the standards used for new and revised material and the limitations of material still under review.

Scientific accuracy and sources

Explanations should distinguish established concepts, simplified teaching models and emerging research. References should support the specific statement being made. Primary research and authoritative textbooks are preferred for scientific claims; a recent publication is not automatically stronger evidence.

Diagrams and questions

Diagrams should have readable labels, accurate relationships and captions explaining any simplification. Practice questions should have one defensible answer where single-answer MCQs are used, with explanations that address likely misconceptions. Images from external sources require appropriate permission or licensing as well as attribution.

AI assistance and review status

Some material has been drafted or structured with AI assistance. Older pages are under ongoing review; this policy does not mean every existing page has been independently reviewed. We do not claim external peer review or exam-board endorsement unless a page explicitly documents it.

Corrections

To report an error, include the page URL, the statement or question at issue, and a supporting source if available. Reports can be sent through the contact page. A substantive correction should be reflected in the relevant lesson, rather than only in a general disclaimer.

Authorship and curriculum

Only verified author qualifications and review contributions should be stated. General biology pages are topic guides; curriculum-specific notes must name their intended course and do not establish complete coverage of another examination.

Advertising and independence

Advertising does not establish scientific validity. Learning content should remain distinguishable from advertising, and any commercial relationship relevant to an article should be disclosed on that page.

Fact-Checking Policy

New and substantially revised learning resources must pass research, coverage planning, drafting, visual review, assessment review, academic checks, SEO checks and technical checks before publication. A reference must support the relevant claim, not simply appear in a bibliography.

Established biology should be checked against an authoritative reference. Curriculum claims must be checked against the issuing provider’s current specification and its stated examination period. Emerging findings need primary research, appropriate limitations and a clear distinction from textbook consensus. Unresolved scientific claims stay unpublished.

Diagrams must be checked for labels, orientation, scale assumptions, processes and biological relationships. Generated visuals receive the same checks as other artwork; a realistic appearance is not evidence of accuracy. External text, images and questions require an appropriate right to reuse, not attribution alone.

Assessment review checks the question independently of its answer key. Single-answer MCQs need one defensible key, plausible distractors and an explanation. Numerical answers must be recalculated with units and assumptions stated. New quizzes must not simply repeat article MCQs with cosmetic rewording.

Sources and further reading

Each new or revised substantive lesson should distinguish sources supporting its explanation from optional further reading. Reference records should include title, issuing organization or author, URL or identifier, publication or specification version, and date checked. We do not invent references, credentials or review contributions.

Review records and content status

The editorial record for a new resource must progress through RESEARCHED, DRAFTED, VISUALS COMPLETE, ASSESSMENT COMPLETE, FACT-CHECKED, SEO CHECKED, TECHNICALLY CHECKED and READY TO PUBLISH. A step may be marked not applicable only with a recorded reason, such as an index page that has no assessment. A changed scientific explanation or answer key invalidates the affected downstream checks.

These are release requirements, not a retrospective certification of the archive. An existing publication date does not mean a page has passed the new workflow. Claimed human review must identify an actual contribution; AI-assisted checking alone must not be presented as independent expert review.

Corrections and maintenance

Report a problem through the Contact page with the lesson URL and the issue. A confirmed error should be corrected in the explanation, affected diagrams and answer keys. Substantive changes need a dated correction record. Stable textbook explanations should not be rewritten merely to display a newer date.

Resources may be improved, consolidated or retired after their educational value, duplication, use and incoming links are considered. A permanent move should preserve a useful route to an equivalent resource. No blanket deletion or unrelated redirect is used as a substitute for review.