Elano Quarterly 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.
These principles are not aspirational. They describe how each article produced by this journal is handled from conception to publication. The standard is applied to every piece — long-form features, shorter observational notes, and corrections alike.
The rationale for this level of process in what is, ostensibly, a small independent publication is simple: the subjects covered by Elano Quarterly — everyday eating patterns and their relationship to weight and wellbeing — are subjects on which misinformation circulates freely and on which unsupported assertion often gains traction. A publication choosing to operate in this space has an obligation to hold itself to a standard that distinguishes it from content designed primarily for engagement rather than accuracy.
Writers propose subjects based on their reading of recent nutritional research and direct observation of everyday eating contexts. A proposed subject must meet three criteria: it must be grounded in at least three independent published sources; it must be observable in ordinary daily life rather than only in experimental settings; and it must be a subject that has not received editorial attention proportionate to its significance in the research literature.
Topics that fail to meet these criteria are logged and revisited when new research becomes available. The editorial team meets quarterly to review the topic pipeline.
Before writing begins, the editorial team assembles and evaluates the source base for the proposed piece. Preference is given to peer-reviewed research published in indexed nutritional, public health, or behavioural science journals. Government nutritional guidance and published surveys are acceptable as contextual sources but are not regarded as primary evidence for specific claims.
Where sources conflict — as they frequently do in nutritional research — both positions are represented in the article. The article does not resolve contested evidence on behalf of the reader; it documents the state of the evidence. Caveats applied by the original researchers are preserved in the editorial presentation.
Articles are written to a minimum of 1,200 words. This length is a structural requirement, not an arbitrary target: the subjects covered by the journal require sufficient space to present the evidence base, contextualise findings, acknowledge limitations, and draw observed patterns without compressing the argument to the point of distortion.
Writers are expected to maintain the publication's observational register throughout — describing patterns without prescribing behaviour, citing evidence without overstating its certainty, and using language accessible to a general reader without sacrificing accuracy.
Every article is reviewed by a second member of the editorial team before publication. The reviewing editor works from the same source materials as the writer. The review addresses four questions: Are all factual claims accurately represented in relation to their cited source? Does the article represent contested evidence fairly? Does any language overstate the certainty of findings? Is the piece consistent with the editorial principles of the journal?
The reviewing editor's name is credited alongside the writer on every published piece. This dual attribution reflects that both parties take responsibility for the content as published.
Where a factual error is identified — by the editorial team, by a reader, or by a researcher cited in the piece — a correction note is appended to the article within one working day of the error being confirmed. The correction note states the original claim, the corrected version, the date of correction, and, where appropriate, the source of the correction.
The original text is not altered without a correction note. Silently editing published content is not consistent with the journal's commitment to transparency. All correction requests are acknowledged within one working day, regardless of whether the correction is ultimately confirmed.
Peer-reviewed research published in indexed nutritional, public health, and behavioural science journals. These are used to support specific factual claims and are cited directly within articles.
Government nutritional guidelines, published surveys, and established nutritional reference works. Used to provide context and background, not to support specific causal claims. Clearly distinguished from primary sources in the text.
Commercial white papers, brand-funded studies, opinion pieces without cited evidence, and anecdotal accounts without supporting research. These may be noted as context but are not cited as evidence for claims.
Articles published on Elano Quarterly 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.
Elano Quarterly is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.
Elano Quarterly does not accept advertising, sponsored content, or any form of commercial arrangement that could influence editorial decisions. This is a structural commitment, not a preference: the value of the publication rests on its ability to cover subjects without deference to commercial interests in the food, nutrition, or wellness sectors.
Writers are required to disclose, at the time of submitting a proposed piece, any commercial relationships — current or within the preceding twelve months — with organisations whose products, services, or positions might be relevant to the proposed subject. Where a conflict of interest exists and is not resolvable, the piece is assigned to a different writer.
The journal has no investor relationships, no sponsorship relationships, and no affiliation with any university, research institution, or governmental body. Funding for the publication comes entirely from its editorial operations.
Topics are proposed by writers based on their reading of current nutritional research and observation of everyday eating contexts. Each proposal is assessed against three criteria: sufficient published evidence, observable real-world occurrence, and a gap between the evidence base and existing editorial coverage. The editorial team meets quarterly to plan the publication calendar.
Primary evidence comes from peer-reviewed research in indexed nutritional, public health, and behavioural science journals. Government guidelines and published surveys are used as context. Commercial white papers, brand-funded studies, and anecdotal accounts are not cited as evidence for specific claims.
Every article is reviewed by a second editor working from the same source materials as the writer. The review checks factual accuracy against cited sources, assesses fair representation of contested evidence, flags overstatement, and confirms consistency with editorial principles. Both writer and reviewing editor are credited on the published piece.
Contact the editorial team at [email protected] or use the form on the contact page. Include the article title, the specific claim, and the source you believe contradicts it. Corrections are reviewed within one working day. Where confirmed, a correction note is appended to the article with the date.
No. Elano Quarterly does not accept advertising, sponsored content, or any arrangement that could influence editorial decisions. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body. Writers are required to disclose any relevant commercial relationships before assignment.