Evidence before authority
Institutional prestige is not proof. Experts and official bodies can provide data, methods and technical findings, but conclusions must remain traceable to evidence.
Editorial constitution
Editorial standards
The rules below apply to every substantial investigation, regardless of topic, institution, ideology or speaker.
Primary sources first
When the underlying paper, dataset, report, standard, court document or technical record is available, we link to it rather than relying only on commentary about it.
Observation is not interpretation
We distinguish measurements and documented facts from inference, interpretation, uncertainty and editorial conclusion.
Strongest case, not easiest target
We address the strongest serious version of a claim and the strongest meaningful evidence offered in its support.
Calibrated language
Evidence statuses describe the record, not the intelligence or motives of people who believe a claim. We do not use certainty stronger than the evidence supports.
Visible corrections
Material mistakes are corrected openly. We record what changed, when it changed and whether the correction altered the conclusion.
Commercial independence
Claim by Claim investigations are never sponsored content. Advertising, memberships, donations, platform funding or other revenue sources may not determine which evidence is selected or what conclusion an investigation reaches. Material conflicts relevant to a claim must be disclosed.
AI assists; sources decide
AI may assist discovery, organization, comparison, drafting, coding and editing. AI output is never treated as evidence. Factual claims must be verified against underlying sources before publication.
Evidence language
Our conclusion states
Strong evidence supports the claim.
The core claim is supported, with meaningful qualifications.
Some underlying facts may be true, but the presentation creates a materially false impression.
Current evidence does not justify the claim.
Good evidence directly conflicts with the claim.
The available evidence is insufficient or materially conflicting.
The claim is framed so that no plausible observation could disconfirm it.
Operational standard
The rules behind the concise principles
The cards above are the short version. These grouped rules complete the public summary of the canonical operational standard without turning this page into a policy manual.
Scope and evidence architecture Define the Claim before judging it
- Scope before rhetoric. Evaluate the exact Claim; do not strengthen, weaken or broaden it to produce a cleaner verdict.
- Trace conclusions through Evidence → Source. A URL alone is not Evidence; the Investigation must state what the Source contributes.
- Keep Status and Evidence Quality separate. Status summarizes what the evidence says about the Claim. Evidence Quality describes confidence in the underlying evidence base.
- Claim provenance is not Evidence Source. Material showing where a rumor appeared or spread can document provenance without establishing that the rumor is true.
Reasoning and reusable knowledge Explain the inference, not just the label
- Reasoning Errors are diagnostic tools, not verdict substitutes. We attach them only when the inference actually exhibits the pattern and explain why.
- Investigations can use or extend Learn. A Claim may apply or exemplify an existing Learn Item, contribute a validated example, or surface a candidate concept for later editorial review.
- Misinformation Mechanics must be evidence-backed. New labels are added only when the mechanism is materially distinct and supported, including mechanisms emerging from new media or AI systems.
- How Science Works is methodological education. It explains error detection, measurement, inference and updating rather than treating institutional authority as proof.
Neutrality, people and participation Apply one evidentiary standard
- Political and editorial neutrality. Apply the same evidentiary standard regardless of ideology, institution, nationality or speaker; contested motive claims are attributed rather than adopted as fact.
- People are not diagnoses. We do not infer intelligence, pathology or moral character from belief in a Claim.
- Community input is evidence-weighted. Reader submissions are assessed by evidentiary value; popularity, voting or contributor identity do not determine truth or status.
- Commercial arrangements do not control conclusions. Revenue, sponsorship, distribution or platform relationships cannot determine Evidence selection or status.
Corrections, AI and publication gate Publication is a review state, not a finished draft
- Corrections stay visible. Material factual errors are corrected openly; genuinely new evidence that changes a previously justified conclusion is recorded as an update rather than retroactively relabeled as an original error.
- AI is a tool, never Evidence. AI may assist research, organization, drafting, coding and adversarial review, but central factual claims and citations must be checked against underlying Sources.
- Human editorial quality matters. Final prose should be specific, economical, evidence-led, readable, non-patronizing and free of formulaic filler.
- Publication requires a gate. A scoped Claim, adequate Evidence, adversarial review, Source verification, calibrated status, technical validation and a correction/update path are required before publication.
This section reconciles the concise public page with Claim by Claim's operational editorial standard. The external self-audit below remains a dated comparison against third-party frameworks; completing our own public standard does not automatically turn its PARTIAL or MISSING governance items into PASS.
Transparency
External standards & self-audit
A public comparison of our current editorial practice with established fact-checking, publication-ethics and scientific-reporting frameworks. Detailed material stays collapsed until you choose to inspect it.
Scope and references External standards & methodological references
Claim by Claim is an evidence-based editorial publication, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Our investigations should not be interpreted as original scientific research or as systematic reviews unless explicitly identified as such.
We benchmark our editorial and evidence practices against established standards for professional fact-checking, research transparency and publication ethics. The principal external reference frameworks are the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles and the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) Code of Standards.
We also consult relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), particularly on corrections, conflicts of interest, editorial independence, attribution and responsible use of AI.
When an investigation relies on scientific literature, study-design-specific standards such as EQUATOR reporting guidelines, PRISMA and GRADE may be used to evaluate the quality and reporting of underlying evidence where applicable. Ordinary Claim by Claim investigations are not themselves PRISMA systematic reviews, and our Evidence Quality labels are editorial assessments rather than formal GRADE ratings unless explicitly stated otherwise.
No certification claim.
Reference to an external standard does not imply certification, accreditation, membership or endorsement. Claim by Claim does not currently claim verified status with IFCN, EFCSN, COPE, ICMJE, PRISMA, GRADE or any other external standards body.
How to read the table Standards alignment self-audit
We believe transparency should apply to our methodology as well as to the claims we investigate. The tables below record our current self-assessment against relevant external standards.
PASS
The requirement is publicly documented and reflected in current practice.
PARTIAL
Substantial elements are present, but the requirement is not yet fully documented or implemented.
MISSING
We have not yet implemented or publicly documented the requirement.
NOT APPLICABLE
The requirement does not apply to our current publication type or status.
This is a self-audit, not an external assessment or certification. Statuses may change as our editorial processes develop. Snapshot reviewed 3 October 2026.
Professional fact-checking benchmark IFCN Code of Principles
Requirement wording below is our own condensed description of the IFCN criteria, not a reproduction of the official checklist. Read the official IFCN Code of Principles.
| Requirement | Status | Current position |
|---|---|---|
| Same evidentiary standard regardless of who made the claim | PASS | Our Editorial Standards apply regardless of topic, institution, ideology or speaker. |
| Balanced claim selection and a published selection policy | PARTIAL | We apply a common evidentiary standard, but our claim-selection criteria are not yet fully documented publicly. |
| Disclosure of relevant source and organisational conflicts | PARTIAL | Material source conflicts are disclosed where identified; organisation-wide disclosure requires further development. |
| Organisational non-partisanship and no political endorsement | PARTIAL | Claim by Claim does not currently engage in political advocacy, but a formal public non-partisanship policy has not yet been published. |
| Staff non-partisanship policy | MISSING | A formal public policy has not yet been published. |
| Significant evidence identified and linked | PASS | Investigations provide structured evidence trails and source links intended to make findings independently inspectable. |
| Primary sources preferred and secondary-source use explained | PARTIAL | Primary sources are explicitly preferred; reasons for relying on secondary sources are not yet documented systematically. |
| Central claims cross-checked against multiple sources | PARTIAL | Multi-source verification is normal practice but is not yet expressed as a mandatory public publication rule. |
| Relevant interests of evidence sources disclosed | PARTIAL | Conflicts and funding relationships are disclosed in many investigations where material, but the public requirement is not yet fully formalised. |
| Funding sources and legal form publicly disclosed | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Parent-organisation ownership disclosure | NOT APPLICABLE | Claim by Claim is not currently presented as a fact-checking unit of a parent media organisation. |
| Organisational structure and editorial control disclosed | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Professional biographies of key editorial contributors | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Public means of contacting the editorial team | PASS | Contact, claim-submission and evidence-submission channels are available. |
| Methodology covering selection, research, writing and publication | PARTIAL | Research and publication structure are documented in detail; selection and editorial approval require further public documentation. |
| Claims selected primarily for reach and importance | MISSING | A formal public selection policy has not yet been published. |
| Evidence supporting and challenging a claim presented | PASS | Adversarial evidence review is an explicit part of the Method and Investigation structure. |
| Same evidence standards applied regardless of claim-maker | PASS | Explicitly required by our Editorial Standards and Method. |
| Claim-maker contacted for supporting evidence where appropriate | MISSING | A formal right-of-reply / claim-maker contact policy has not yet been implemented. |
| Readers encouraged to submit claims with clear eligibility expectations | PARTIAL | Claim submission is available; selection and fact-checkability boundaries require additional documentation. |
| Accessible corrections and complaints policy | PARTIAL | A public corrections log exists, but a complete public complaints procedure is not yet published. |
| Defined handling of minor, major and disputed corrections | MISSING | The current public corrections page does not yet expose the full correction taxonomy and dispute procedure. |
| Corrections made openly and transparently | PASS | Material corrections and evidence updates are designed to remain visible on investigations and in the public corrections log. |
| IFCN external complaint route | NOT APPLICABLE | Applicable only if Claim by Claim becomes an IFCN signatory. |
| Parent-media corrections policy | NOT APPLICABLE | Claim by Claim is not currently presented as a unit of a parent media organisation. |
Additional European benchmark Additional EFCSN requirements
The EFCSN overlaps substantially with IFCN but includes additional or more specific requirements. The descriptions below are condensed in our own words. Read the official EFCSN Code of Standards.
| Requirement | Status | Current position |
|---|---|---|
| Public-interest focus explicitly incorporated into selection methodology | PARTIAL | Current investigations substantially concern public-interest questions, but the criterion is not yet formalised in claim selection. |
| Evidence sufficient to replicate verification | PASS | Structured source and evidence trails are publicly available. |
| Evidence for every pertinent factual statement | PARTIAL | Strong source trails are present, but not every factual statement is explicitly mapped one-to-one to a source. |
| At least two sources for the central claim except genuine single-source cases | PARTIAL | Usually reflected in current investigations but not yet a mandatory written public rule. |
| Policy for anonymous sources and corroboration | PARTIAL | Current investigations rely overwhelmingly on named sources; a formal anonymous-source policy has not yet been published. |
| Expert credentials established when experts are quoted | PARTIAL | Relevant expertise is normally contextualised, but this is not yet a formal publication requirement. |
| At least one editorial review by someone other than the author | MISSING | A mandatory independent second-person editorial review has not yet been established as a publication requirement. |
| Precise, factual and non-emotive findings | PASS | This is reflected in our calibrated-language standard. |
| Archiving of original claims and source material where practical | PARTIAL | Original claim trails are documented, but systematic archival preservation is not yet part of the workflow. |
| Explicit political and editorial independence policy | PARTIAL | Commercial and evidentiary independence are documented; a broader formal public independence policy remains to be added. |
| Policy prohibiting compromising political or PR relationships | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Staff political-role and partisan-statement policies | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Gifts and favours policy | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Safety-sensitive identity protection | MISSING | A formal public policy has not yet been published. |
| Protection of user-generated-content sources from undue scrutiny | MISSING | A formal public policy has not yet been published. |
| Special privacy protections for minors | MISSING | A formal public policy has not yet been published. |
| Anonymisation of personal information that could facilitate harassment | MISSING | A formal public policy has not yet been published. |
| Right of reply where appropriate | MISSING | A formal policy has not yet been implemented. |
| Corrections distributed through the original channel when necessary | MISSING | Not yet covered by the public corrections policy. |
| Major-correction explanation and circumstances | PARTIAL | Corrections can record what changed and whether the conclusion changed; fuller incident explanations are not yet mandatory publicly. |
| Public correction-request procedure | MISSING | Requires a fuller public corrections and complaints policy. |
| Direct correction-submission channel | PARTIAL | Evidence and contact forms can be used, but the corrections page does not yet define the process explicitly. |
| Organisational structure and editorial control | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Ownership and legal status | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Governance | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Identity and background of editorial decision-makers | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Editorial roles and relevant professional backgrounds | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Mission, values and independence safeguards | PARTIAL | Mission and editorial values are public; formal independence safeguards require expansion. |
| Organisational bylaws or equivalent governing rules | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Annual income and principal funding sources | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Mechanisms protecting editorial independence from funders | PARTIAL | Commercial independence is explicit, but the mechanisms and funding structure are not yet public. |
| Significant unpaid organisational commitments | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Sponsored-content rules and prohibition on sponsored fact-checks | PASS | The proposed public standard explicitly states that Claim by Claim investigations are never sponsored content. |
| Material externally provided goods and services | MISSING | Not yet published. |
| Legally registered organisation visibly identified | MISSING | Not currently documented on the website. |
| Organisation primarily dedicated to fact-checking | PASS | This is consistent with Claim by Claim's published mission. |
| Demonstrable focus on an eligible European country | MISSING | Claim by Claim currently operates as a primarily global, English-language publication. |
| Minimum publication track record required for EFCSN eligibility | MISSING | Claim by Claim has not yet existed long enough to satisfy the eligibility track-record requirement. |
| Investigations primarily concern matters of public interest | PASS | This is consistent with the current editorial scope. |
Scientific and publication-ethics context Scientific publishing and evidence frameworks
These frameworks are methodological references, not fact-checking accreditation. Reporting guidelines for scientific studies are only applicable when the publication type or underlying evidence calls for them.
| Framework or practice | Status | Applicability |
|---|---|---|
| COPE — corrections and post-publication discussion | PARTIAL | Our visible correction system follows the same transparency principle, but our public complaints procedure remains less comprehensive. |
| COPE — conflicts of interest | PARTIAL | Material conflicts in evidence sources are addressed; organisation-wide and contributor disclosure remains incomplete. |
| COPE — authorship and contributorship | PARTIAL | Investigations can identify author and reviewer, but detailed contributor roles are not yet consistently public. |
| COPE — complaints and appeals | MISSING | A formal public procedure remains to be established. |
| COPE — data and reproducibility | PARTIAL | Evidence trails support reproducibility of reasoning, but Claim by Claim does not currently maintain a general research-data policy. |
| COPE — formal peer review | NOT APPLICABLE | Claim by Claim is an editorial publication, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. |
| ICMJE — corrections and version control | PARTIAL | Corrections are visible, but previous article versions are not currently maintained as a complete public archive. |
| ICMJE — conflicts and editorial independence | PARTIAL | Core principles are reflected in our standards; organisational disclosure remains incomplete. |
| ICMJE — responsible AI use | PARTIAL | AI output is never accepted as evidence and factual claims require source verification; more granular public AI-use disclosure would be required for closer alignment. |
| PRISMA / PRISMA-S | NOT APPLICABLE | Standard Claim by Claim investigations are not systematic reviews. PRISMA may be used when evaluating or explicitly conducting a systematic review. |
| GRADE | NOT APPLICABLE | Claim by Claim Evidence Quality is an editorial assessment and is not a formal GRADE certainty rating unless explicitly identified as such. |
| CONSORT, STROBE and other EQUATOR reporting guidelines | NOT APPLICABLE | Claim by Claim does not ordinarily publish original trials or observational studies. Relevant reporting guidelines may instead be considered when evaluating underlying research. |
Interpretation What this audit means
The strongest current alignment is in evidence handling: source transparency, primary-source preference, adversarial review, presentation of evidence on both sides, calibrated conclusions and visible correction architecture.
The principal gaps concern organisational transparency and formal editorial governance rather than the basic evidence-review method. These include ownership and funding disclosure, editorial-control and contributor information, claim-selection criteria, a comprehensive corrections and complaints policy, non-partisanship and privacy policies, right-of-reply procedures and independent second-person editorial review.
Publishing these gaps is intentional. A self-audit is useful only if it distinguishes what already exists from what remains unfinished. When a missing or partial requirement is implemented, this table should be updated rather than silently rewritten.
Self-audit last reviewed: 3 October 2026.