Dalmor Quarterly
— Process & Standards

Notes on Standards.

The editorial principles, sourcing criteria, and review procedures that govern every article published under the Dalmor Quarterly name.

Revision 03-B
Archived February 2026 ///
// 01 — Foundation

Editorial Principles

Dalmor 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.

Dalmor Quarterly 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 Dalmor 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.

The publication was established to bring measured, evidence-informed perspectives on everyday nutrition to a general readership. Our editors hold the view that good food literacy begins with clear, honest writing — not with persuasion or aspiration.

// 02 — Publication Process

From Pitch to Publication

01
Pitch Submission
Weeks 1–2
Writers submit a proposal of no more than 250 words covering the proposed angle, the primary sources they intend to draw upon, and any potential conflicts of interest. The editorial desk reviews proposals on a fortnightly cycle. Proposals are assessed against current editorial priorities and the publication's subject scope. Writers are notified of acceptance or rejection within fourteen days.
02
First Draft Review
Weeks 3–5
Accepted proposals proceed to draft. The writer submits a complete first draft alongside a sources document listing all referenced publications, datasets, and expert observations. The managing editor conducts a structural review: does the article follow its stated angle? Are claims substantiated by the cited sources? Is the register consistent with the publication's voice guidelines? Annotations are returned to the writer within seven working days.
03
Source Verification
Weeks 4–6
A second editorial team member independently verifies each cited source. For peer-reviewed research, this involves confirming the study's scope matches the claim made in the article. For institutional or governmental sources — such as published dietary guidelines from UK public bodies — the source document is reviewed directly. Any claim that cannot be verified against a cited source is flagged for revision or removal.
04
Copy Edit
Week 6
The revised draft undergoes a full copy edit for grammar, house style, and readability. The publication follows UK English conventions (Oxford comma optional, -ise not -ize, day-month-year date format). Nutritional terminology is reviewed against current published guidelines. The copy editor also checks that no claim has been inadvertently strengthened during revision.
05
Author Sign-Off
Week 7
The final edited text is returned to the original author for sign-off. The author may flag any copy edits that alter their intended meaning. Factual additions made during editing are highlighted separately for the author's specific approval. This stage ensures that the published text accurately represents the writer's views as modified only for house style and accuracy.
06
Publication
Week 8
Approved articles are scheduled for publication in the next available editorial cycle. Each article carries a visible publication date, author name, and — where relevant — a disclosure note regarding any commercial relationships declared at pitch stage. Post-publication corrections are appended as dated footnotes to the original article, never silently applied.
// 03 — Sourcing

Source Hierarchy

Not all sources carry equal weight. The editorial desk applies a graded source hierarchy to distinguish evidence quality in nutritional reporting.

A
Peer-Reviewed Research

Published studies in indexed nutritional science journals. Primary source for claims about nutrient roles, dietary patterns, and population-level observations. Authors must cite the specific study, not secondary summaries.

B
Published Dietary Guidelines

Guidance published by recognised governmental and independent nutritional bodies in the United Kingdom. These sources are used to contextualise recommended intakes and population-wide dietary observations.

C
Expert Commentary

Observations from qualified nutrition professionals or registered dietitians, cited by name and credential. Expert commentary supplements, but does not replace, published research as a primary source.

D
Observational & Anecdotal

Personal accounts, reader observations, and food-culture commentary. Permitted in feature and opinion pieces only, and explicitly labelled as subjective. Never used to substantiate nutritional claims.

// 04 — Corrections

Correction Policy

Corrections are a mark of editorial integrity, not editorial failure. When a published article contains a factual error, the publication corrects it promptly, publicly, and without obfuscation.

Minor corrections — typographical errors, factual details that do not affect the article's argument — are corrected in the body of the article and noted with a dated footnote: "Corrected [date]: [brief description of change]."

Material corrections — errors that affect a central claim or recommendation — are corrected in the body of the article and listed in the publication's public corrections log. The author and original commissioning editor are informed. If the error significantly undermines the article's argument, an editor's note is prepended to the full text.

Retractions are considered when the foundational premise of an article is found to be incorrect and cannot be remedied by partial correction. Retracted articles are replaced by a notice explaining the reason for retraction; the original text is not deleted but is removed from the primary editorial index.

Readers who identify possible errors are encouraged to write to the editorial office at [email protected] with the article title, the passage in question, and any supporting evidence they can provide.

// 05 — Independence

Independence & Disclosure

Editorial decisions at Dalmor Quarterly are made without reference to commercial considerations. The publication does not receive payment for positive coverage of any product, brand, or service. Writers who hold professional or commercial relationships with organisations mentioned in their articles are required to disclose this at the pitch stage.

Where disclosure is warranted, a note appears at the foot of the relevant article identifying the nature of the relationship. The editorial board determines whether a disclosed relationship disqualifies a writer from covering a specific subject; this is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The publication does not accept samples, review products, or feature branded content within its editorial pages. All articles are generated from the editorial team's own research and reporting.

Editorial Independence Statement

"Content published by Dalmor Quarterly is selected based on published nutritional research and undergoes independent batch verification for quality and labelling accuracy."

8+
Weeks Per Article
2
Editorial Reviews Each
100%
Sources Verified
0
Undisclosed Commercial Ties
// 06 — FAQ

Standards Questions