Quotes: primary sources or nothing
Every quotation is checked against a primary source before it enters the library: the original work in a reliable edition, a scholarly critical edition, a manuscript archive, or a faithful public-domain edition such as Project Gutenberg. Each quote carries the most precise locator available — book, chapter, letter, poem, or verse. Quote aggregators and social posts may suggest a lead; they never count as evidence.
Misattributions are rejected outright, however popular. The internet's favourite "Rumi", "Buddha", and "Thoreau" lines are very often modern inventions; we document the worst offenders, and why attribution matters, inThe weight of attribution.
Research: the paper outranks the institution
When a Journal article makes a research claim, it links to the original peer-reviewed paper, a systematic review, or an official guideline. A Harvard, MIT, NIH, NHS, WHO, or leading-clinic page can explain context, but a famous name does not replace the underlying evidence. Author names, journal, year, sample, design, endpoint, and DOI or canonical archive record are checked against the source itself.
We prefer accessible records at PubMed, PubMed Central, the journal publisher, or the institution's own repository. Secondary reporting is used only when it adds relevant history or expert context, and is labelled as such.
Statistics: the boundary travels with the number
A number without its limits is a decoration. When we print an effect size, we print what qualifies it: sample and population, study design, duration, endpoint, and whether it is a relative or absolute change. Observational associations are not rewritten as causes; pilot studies stay pilots; within-sample prediction is not presented as a promise about an individual reader. We also check whether a popular version of a number — the “25% happier” problem — appears in the paper it is attributed to at all. Modest, credible numbers outrank impressive, invented ones.
Well-being content: useful, never clinical
RiseHush publishes educational material about attention, habits, gratitude, sleep, and relationships; it does not diagnose or treat. A quotation, reflection exercise, or app reminder is never described as a substitute for professional care. When a subject approaches medical or mental-health guidance, we state the limit and favour peer-reviewed evidence and public-health guidance over lifestyle claims.
Tools assist; an editor remains responsible
Research and software tools may help locate candidate sources, test links, count words, or check consistency across languages. They do not approve a quotation, interpret a result, or publish an article. The named editor owns source selection, wording, caveats, publication, and correction. We claim no academic or clinical credential that we do not hold; readers can inspect the evidence instead of borrowing our confidence.
Corrections
If we got a word, a source, or a number wrong, we want to know. Write tosupport@risehush.com with the page and the correction and, where possible, the source that supports it. We review the original evidence, fix verified errors in place, update the review date, and note material corrections on the affected article. Questions about interpretation receive the same route even when the published wording remains unchanged.
Read the Journal ↗
