How the Record Is Kept.
A documented account of the editorial process that governs selection, review, publication, and correction within this publication.
All articles begin with an identification phase in which the writer specifies the published sources that will inform the piece. The editors maintain a requirement that at least three peer-reviewed or independently published research sources are identified per article before the writing process begins. Sources from the popular wellness press are not accepted as primary references; they may be cited as examples of the cultural phenomenon under examination but not as evidence for factual claims.
The source list is appended to the article file and retained in the internal archive regardless of whether all sources are cited in the final published piece.
Before any draft is reviewed editorially, each identified source is verified by the lead editor or a designated second reader. Verification involves confirming that the source says what the writer claims it says — a process that frequently requires reading the full source text rather than the abstract or summary.
Where a source is found to be misrepresented, even unintentionally, the draft is returned to the writer with the discrepancy noted. The revised draft undergoes full source verification again before progressing.
Every draft that passes source verification is read by at least one second editor before publication. The second editor's notes are appended to the article file and are made available to the writer for response. This exchange is retained in the internal archive.
The dual review process is not a consensus mechanism. The lead editor retains final editorial authority. Its purpose is to surface unchallenged assumptions, unclear arguments, and potential factual gaps before publication.
A specific language review is conducted at the copy-editing stage. This review focuses on the precision and register of language used to describe eating behaviour. The editors apply a standing instruction: claims should be stated at the level of certainty the evidence supports. Where research is directional rather than conclusive, language should reflect that.
The language review also checks for the inadvertent replication of diet culture framings — prescriptive language, optimisation vocabulary, and binary compliance-versus-failure constructions — which are identified and revised before publication.
All published articles are archived with their source files, editorial notes, and version history. The archive is maintained internally and is available to readers in summary form on request.
Where a published article is found to contain a factual error — whether identified internally or submitted by a reader — a correction is appended to the original piece and noted in the editorial log. The original text is not altered; the correction is added as a clearly dated addendum. Corrections that have been submitted by readers and verified by the editors are acknowledged as reader-submitted.
Commercial independence policy.
Orfeld Field Notes does not accept sponsored placement in any form. This includes sponsored articles, embedded product recommendations, affiliate links, display advertising, and brand partnership arrangements of any kind. The publication has maintained this policy since its founding in 2020 and considers it a structural precondition for editorial credibility on the subject of diet culture.
The editorial position of this publication is that commercial wellness culture is itself one of the subjects under examination. A publication that accepts payment from that culture in exchange for placement cannot conduct that examination with the necessary independence. This is not a criticism of all commercial wellness activity; it is a statement about the conditions under which this specific publication can function.
Operating costs are covered by direct reader support. The publication does not disclose the precise structure of that support, but confirms that it involves no commercial, governmental, or institutional dependency. All editorial decisions are made by the editors without external input or approval.
How reader accounts are used
Reader correspondence is used in articles as illustrative material — that is, as a way of placing the documentary and research evidence in the context of lived experience. It is not regarded as evidence in itself. Individual accounts are selected for their relevance to the editorial argument, not for their representativeness of any particular population.
The editors exercise judgment about when to publish reader accounts. Accounts are not published in a form that would identify the contributor without their explicit consent. Where accounts are edited for clarity or length, the edited version is confirmed with the contributor before publication.
Consent and anonymisation
Contributors whose accounts are used in published articles are asked to confirm consent in writing before publication. The default position is anonymisation: identifying details are removed unless the contributor specifically requests attribution. Partial attribution — first name only, city, or professional descriptor — is available on request.
The correspondence archive is maintained securely and is not shared with third parties. Contributors may request that their account be removed from the archive at any time. Removal from the archive does not automatically result in removal from published articles in which the account has already been used; such requests are evaluated individually.
“A publication that accepts payment from the culture it analyses cannot conduct that analysis independently. This is not a moral position. It is a structural one.”