Editorial Policy

How content is created

Every article starts with a question a dog owner actually has, not with a product we would like to sell. Topics come from reader emails, recurring questions in dog communities, and gaps where the advice already online is thin, contradictory or obviously recycled from a press release.

Once a topic is chosen, the writer works through a fixed sequence:

1. Establish what is actually known — standards documents, regulator guidance, peer-reviewed research and manufacturer specifications.
2. Identify where the evidence is contested or absent, so that uncertainty can be stated rather than smoothed over.
3. Where the article covers a physical product, use it with a real dog over a period long enough for wear, failure and irritation to show up.
4. Draft in plain English, with the practical answer near the top rather than buried under preamble.
5. Attach every substantive claim to a source that a reader can check.

Fact-checking process

Before publication, each factual claim is checked against a primary source. A claim is only allowed to stand if it can be traced to a regulator, a peer-reviewed study, a professional body, a manufacturer's own documentation, or direct observation we describe openly as our own.

Claims we cannot substantiate are removed. Claims that are genuinely disputed are labelled as disputed, with both positions represented.

Editorial review workflow

Every article passes through defined roles, each of which is named publicly on the article itself:

Written by

The person who researched and drafted the article, and who is accountable for its argument.

Reviewed by

A second person with relevant subject knowledge who checks the article for accuracy, omissions and overstatement.

Edited by

The editor responsible for structure, clarity, tone and compliance with this policy.

Where a role has not been filled for a given article, the article says so rather than leaving the impression that a review took place. You can see who holds which role on our team page.

Source verification

We work outward from the strongest available evidence:

• Preferred: peer-reviewed research, regulator and government publications, veterinary professional bodies, and published standards.
• Acceptable with attribution: manufacturer documentation, reputable reporting, and our own hands-on testing where we describe the conditions.
• Not used as evidence: press releases, affiliate network copy, marketing claims, and other blogs.

Sources are listed in a References block at the foot of each article and linked so you can read them yourself. Where a source sits behind a paywall we say so.

Updating older content

Advice goes stale. Products are reformulated and discontinued; research moves on. We revisit articles when something changes that would alter the recommendation, and at minimum review evergreen guides periodically.

Updated articles carry a visible Last updated date. We do not refresh a date without changing anything — a moved date always reflects real editorial work.

Corrections

We get things wrong sometimes. When we do, we fix it in public rather than editing quietly. Our full corrections policy sets out how to report an error, what happens next, and the timescales we hold ourselves to. You can report an issue here.

Medical review

Health-related content carries additional requirements, including review by an appropriately qualified veterinary professional. Those requirements are set out in the medical review policy.

Nothing on this site is veterinary advice, and none of it is a substitute for consulting a vet who has actually examined your animal.

AI usage

We use AI tools in parts of our workflow and we disclose that openly rather than pretending otherwise. The boundaries — what AI is allowed to touch, what it is never allowed to decide, and what a human must verify before anything is published — are documented on our AI transparency page.

Human quality assurance

Before an article goes live, a person confirms each of the following:

• A named author is assigned and accountable.
• Every factual claim has been checked against a source.
• References are present, correct and reachable.
• Any affiliate relationship is disclosed above the content.
• Health claims carry the appropriate review and disclaimer.
• Headline and meta description describe the article honestly, without clickbait.

If any check fails, the article does not publish.

Commercial independence

This site is funded by affiliate commissions, disclosed on every page carrying them. That funding model creates an obvious conflict of interest, so we constrain it explicitly:

• We do not sell placements, ratings, list positions or reviews.
• Commission rates play no part in what we cover or how we rank it.
• Where a product was supplied to us rather than bought, the article says so.
• Commercial staff have no say over editorial verdicts.

See the affiliate disclosure for the full arrangement.

Contact

Questions about this policy, or think we have fallen short of it? Write to [email protected] — we would genuinely rather know.