Narbel Letters
Editorial Standards — Document Rev. 03

Standards
& Process

A transparent account of how articles are commissioned, drafted, reviewed and published on Narbel Letters. Updated quarterly.

01 — Foundation

Editorial Principles

Narbel Letters operates under the following editorial principles: articles are reviewed by at least one second editor before publication, sources are cited where appropriate, corrections are noted publicly, and writers disclose any commercial relationships that could influence their selection of subject matter.

Narbel Letters is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.

Articles published on Narbel Letters are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices. The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional.

Accuracy

Every factual claim in an article is traced to a published source — a peer-reviewed study, a government dietary publication, or an established nutritional authority. Claims without a traceable source are either reframed as observations or removed prior to publication.

Independence

No sponsored content is published without a visible disclosure note at the top of the article. Advertising relationships do not influence article topics, article framing, or the editorial calendar. Writers may not accept complimentary goods from brands they are currently covering.

Corrections

Factual errors are corrected within 48 hours of notification. A correction note is appended to the article footer, dated and signed by the editor. The original erroneous text is struck through and the replacement is shown inline.

02 — Pipeline

Publication Process

01
Commission

Topic Proposal

Writers submit a 150-word topic brief. The brief must identify the primary source material and the editorial angle. Briefs are assessed weekly.

02
Research

Source Gathering

Writers compile published dietary guidelines, government nutrition data, and peer-reviewed nutritional research. A minimum of three independent sources is required per article.

03
Draft

First Draft

The draft is written to a minimum of 1,200 words. Inline citations are included at the sentence level. No unsupported generalisations are permitted in the body copy.

04
Review

Editorial Pass

A second editor checks every factual claim against the cited source. Tone is reviewed for editorial register. The review round typically involves one to two rounds of revision before sign-off.

05
Publish

Publication & Archive

The finalised article is published with a visible dateline and author byline. A version is archived with a revision timestamp. The article remains accessible in full for a minimum of three years from publication.

03 — Sources

Sourcing Standards

Peer-Reviewed Research

The primary source tier for all nutritional claims. Writers access published nutritional research through open-access repositories and institutional databases. Study date, sample scope, and author affiliations are noted in the internal source log.

Where studies conflict, the article acknowledges the divergence rather than selecting only the result that supports the editorial angle.

Government Dietary Guidelines

UK government publications — including NHS guidance on balanced eating, Public Health England nutritional data, and SACN (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) reports — serve as the reference framework for general dietary recommendations cited on this publication.

These publications are named and linked in the relevant articles.

Qualified Professional Observation

Articles occasionally quote or reference the observed practice of qualified wellness and nutrition professionals. Quotes are attributed with the professional's name, qualification, and the date of observation. No anonymous expert quotes are published.

We recommend speaking with a qualified wellness or nutrition professional before introducing any new habit or routine to your daily life, particularly if you have specific dietary requirements.

04 — Scope

What We Cover

Narbel Letters covers practical approaches to everyday nutrition, balanced meal construction, seasonal cooking, and the habits that support a considered relationship with food and physical activity. The publication documents real approaches observed among people who have adopted more deliberate eating routines — not aspirational abstractions.

Topics on this publication include: portion awareness, whole food selection, fibre-rich diets, hydration habits, home-cooked meal planning, gut-friendly ingredient choices, seasonal produce use, and calorie awareness without restrictive framing.

London, 2026 — Field notes, archived quarterly. Each article represents a documented observation, not a directive.

05 — Exclusions

What We Do Not Cover

  • Content framed as professional guidance for specific health conditions. Readers with specific concerns are directed to speak with a qualified wellness professional.

  • Product endorsements presented as objective reviews without disclosed commercial context. All product-adjacent content carries a clear relationship disclosure.

  • Extreme or restrictive dietary approaches that contradict published UK dietary guidelines. The publication supports gradual, sustainable changes aligned with evidence-based nutritional frameworks.

  • Anonymous contributors. Every article carries a named author with a visible bio. Guest writers are vetted and their qualifications noted in the author box.

06 — Verification

Fact-Checking Process

Step A

Source Logging

Each writer maintains an internal source log for every article. The log records the URL or publication reference, the date accessed, and the specific claim the source supports. Logs are retained for 24 months.

Step B

Claim Marking

Within the draft, every factual claim is marked with a bracketed source reference before submission. The second editor cross-checks each marked claim against the source log during the review pass.

Step C

Independent Check

For articles covering specific nutritional research, a qualified nutrition professional who was not involved in the drafting process is consulted during the review stage. Their input is documented in the source log.

Step D

Post-Publication

Readers may flag inaccuracies by writing to [email protected] with the article title, the specific claim and the contrasting source. All flags are reviewed within five working days. Confirmed errors are corrected and noted publicly.

07 — Common Questions

About Our Process

Questions on Process

Reach the Editorial Desk

Queries about sourcing, corrections, or contribution proposals may be directed to the editorial address below. Responses are sent within five working days.

Get in Touch