Fact-Checking Policy

Psychology content is easy to get wrong — a single oversimplified claim can travel far online and shape how people see themselves or each other. We take that seriously. This page explains the standard we hold every article to before it goes live, how we source what we write, and what happens if something slips through despite our process.

Why Accuracy Matters to Us

Psychology is a field people often turn to during genuinely difficult moments — a hard relationship, a confusing pattern in their own behavior, a decision they're trying to understand. Publishing something inaccurate in that context isn't just a small mistake; it can shape how someone interprets their own life. That's the standard we're writing against, and it's why fact-checking isn't an afterthought here — it's part of how every article gets built.

Our Sourcing Standards

When we make a claim about how people think, feel, or behave, we look for it to be grounded in credible, established sources — the kind of psychological research and expert consensus that has actually held up to scrutiny, not a single viral study or an isolated opinion piece. We favor:

• Peer-reviewed psychological research and meta-analyses where available.
• Well-established concepts with broad expert consensus, rather than fringe or one-off findings.
• Primary sources over secondhand summaries, whenever we can trace a claim back to where it originated.

Our Verification Process

Before an article is published, we go through a consistent check:

• Every factual claim is traced back to a credible source before it's included in a draft.
• We distinguish clearly between what research actually shows and where we're offering interpretation or practical suggestion.
• Statistics, study findings, or named concepts (like specific cognitive biases or psychological terms) are double-checked for accuracy before publishing.
• Older articles are periodically revisited, since understanding in psychology can shift as new research emerges.

Distinguishing Research from Opinion

Not everything in an article is a hard fact, and we don't want to pretend otherwise. Where we're presenting established research, we aim to be precise about what it actually found. Where we're offering our own interpretation, a practical suggestion, or a way of applying a concept to everyday life, we try to make that distinction clear rather than blurring the two together as if both carried the same weight.

Reporting an Error

Despite our process, mistakes can still happen — we're a small team, not an infallible one. If you spot something on PsyDecode that seems inaccurate, outdated, or misrepresented, we genuinely want to know about it. Reach out through our Contact page with the article link and what you noticed, and we'll review it. Where a correction is warranted, we update the article directly, consistent with our Editorial Policy's corrections process.