Medical review process

Who reviews

Our standing reviewer is Erica Kerney, Psychologist. Erica is registered with AHPRA and has clinical experience working with adults presenting with co-occurring ADHD and Autism. Where an article is outside her scope (paediatric considerations, psychiatric medication detail, complex differential cases), we engage a topic-specialist reviewer in addition to her sign-off.

The review path

1. Draft. A writer (sometimes a clinician, sometimes a community member, sometimes the editorial team) drafts the article from research notes and the editorial brief.
2. Internal edit. An editor checks structure, plain-language, accuracy of factual claims, and ensures every clinical statement has a citation.
3. Clinical review. The reviewer reads the full article, comments on accuracy, suggests corrections, and signs off explicitly. We do not publish without their sign-off in writing.
4. Compliance check. We check the article for: presence of crisis support block on sensitive topics, correct attribution of every clinical claim, no diagnostic language outside the diagnosis pillar, and Australian crisis line presence on every state-specific page.
5. Publish. The article is dated last reviewed on the day of clinical sign-off and scheduled for next review twelve months out.

Re-review

Every clinical article re-enters the review queue 30 days before its next review date. The reviewer can choose to: re-confirm without changes (and bump the dates forward), revise (small corrections, dates bumped forward), or trigger a rewrite (significant evidence change). Articles that fall past their next-review date are flagged in the editorial dashboard and may be temporarily noindexed if the delay exceeds 60 days.

Sensitive content

Articles touching on suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, or substance use receive an additional safety review against Mindframe guidelines before publication. The crisis support block is non-negotiable on these articles, and our schema validator blocks publish if it is missing.

Disagreements

If an editorial decision conflicts with the reviewer’s clinical view, the reviewer’s view prevails. We would rather publish later than publish something the reviewer is uncomfortable with.