Source
We begin with credible research, established professional guidance and clearly attributed expertise. Sources are noted in the article, and secondary summaries are checked against the original wherever it is accessible.
How we work · 2026
Evidence, context and practical restraint.
Palmus uses an editorial method that makes clear what is known, what is uncertain and what belongs with a qualified professional. This page describes each stage, the way sources are weighed and how corrections are recorded.
Read editorial policy
Process
Our sequence
Each article follows the same four-stage sequence. The stages are deliberately plain so that readers can see where a statement came from and how far it has been interpreted.
Interpret
We explain limits and avoid turning a population finding into an individual promise. Sample size, participant age and setting are described when they affect how far a result can be generalized.
Apply
We offer questions and observations rather than replacing individualized assessment. Practical suggestions are proportionate to the strength of the evidence behind them.
Review
Articles are re-read when new guidance appears and at least once a year. Changes that affect interpretation are logged on the page.
Weighing sources
How different kinds of evidence are described
Not every source carries the same weight. The table shows how Palmus labels common source types and what a reader should keep in mind when reading each.
| Source type | How it is described | What it can show | Limit to keep in mind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review or meta-analysis | Summary of several studies | Overall direction across many participants. | Quality depends on the studies included. |
| Position stand or guideline from a professional body | Consensus guidance | Widely reviewed recommendations for populations. | May not fit an individual’s circumstances. |
| Single controlled trial | Individual study | Effect under defined conditions. | Participants may differ from the reader. |
| Observational study | Association | Patterns across large groups. | Cannot show cause and effect by itself. |
| Practitioner experience | Attributed opinion | Practical context from real coaching situations. | Individual experience is not a controlled result. |
Corrections
Corrections are part of trust
If a material error is identified, we record the change, update the article and explain the correction when it affects interpretation.
Readers can report a possible error through the contact page. The editorial desk reads each report and checks it against the cited source. The outcome is then handled in one of three ways.
- Clarification: wording is adjusted and a short note is added to the page.
- Correction: a factual error is fixed and the change is described with its date.
- No change: the original statement stands, and the reader receives an explanation of why.
Terms used in this method
Words that describe our approach
Evidence
Information gathered through systematic observation or experiment, described together with its limits.
Interpretation
The explanation of what a finding might mean for readers, clearly separated from the finding itself.
Attribution
Naming the source of a statement so that readers can check it for themselves.
Individual assessment
Evaluation by a qualified professional who knows a person’s history, which general articles cannot provide.
Working commitments
Commitments that guide each draft
“Name the source, then name the limit.”
— Palmus editorial commitment
“Prefer a modest, accurate sentence to a confident, uncertain one.”
— Palmus editorial commitment
“Keep health decisions with the people qualified to make them.”
— Palmus editorial commitment
What this method does not do
The Palmus method organizes and explains information. It does not provide diagnosis, individual advice or treatment recommendations, and it cannot account for a person’s medical history. For the policies that govern our content, read the editorial policy, the advertising policy and the disclaimer.