Editorial Policy

This policy explains how The Coventry Review researches, writes, checks and corrects its articles. It exists so you know what standards we hold ourselves to.

How we research

Our articles are built on reputable, publicly available information — from established institutions, peer-reviewed research, official guidance and recognised expert consensus. We prioritise the weight of evidence over any single striking study, and we are cautious about claims that sound too good, too neat, or too new to be trusted.

How we write

We write for a general reader, not a specialist. That means plain language, defined terms, and honesty about uncertainty. Where reasonable people disagree, or where the evidence is genuinely mixed, we say so rather than manufacturing false certainty. Our articles offer general information and are not a substitute for professional medical, financial, legal or other individualised advice.

How we fact-check and edit

Every article is reviewed by an editor before publication, with particular attention to factual claims, numbers, names and anything a reader might act upon. We aim to represent sources fairly and in context.

How we handle corrections

We correct errors promptly and openly. If you spot something wrong or misleading, email editors@hakkindabilgial.com with the article and the issue. Substantive corrections are updated in the text, and we date our articles so you can see when they were last reviewed.

Advertising and independence

Advertising — including native recommendation widgets from third-party partners — helps keep the magazine free. It has no bearing on what we choose to cover or what we conclude. Advertisements and sponsored recommendations are visually distinct from our editorial content and labelled accordingly.

Use of AI tools

Our articles are directed and reviewed by human editors who are accountable for what we publish. Where any software tools assist with research or drafting, a named writer and editor remain responsible for accuracy, tone and judgement.