Editorial policy

1. Purpose

Our purpose is to explain health topics in accessible language and help readers form better questions. We do not publish treatment promises or disguised sales copy.

An article is meant to leave a reader with a clearer picture of a topic, a few practical questions and an idea of where to look next. For example, a page about sleep explains common patterns and invites a reader to discuss persistent difficulty with a professional, rather than offering a routine as a solution. Headlines describe the content plainly and avoid exaggeration. Pages are written for adults aged 30 and over, but the language is intended to be understood by a wider general audience.

• (a) Explain before advising.
• (b) Describe options without pressure.
• (c) Point to professional help where appropriate.

2. Independence

Editorial decisions are separate from advertising and commercial relationships. A sponsor cannot purchase a favourable conclusion or suppress a correction.

Funding for the site comes from the publisher’s own resources, and any commercial relationship is described in the advertising policy. Writers do not receive payment, gifts or hospitality from organisations mentioned in their articles, and a gift offered to staff is declined and recorded. If a commercial party contacts an editor about coverage, the editor replies in writing and the exchange is filed. A request to remove or soften a factual statement is considered only when it points to an error and offers a verifiable source.

• (a) No payment for coverage.
• (b) Gifts declined and recorded.
• (c) Corrections based on evidence, not on pressure.

3. Evidence

Writers identify the strength and limits of evidence. Where research is mixed, we say so. We distinguish association, mechanism, experience, and clinical guidance.

A statement that comes from a large systematic review carries more weight than one from a small early study, and the text says which kind of evidence is being described. Words such as “may”, “is associated with” and “some studies suggest” are used on purpose when findings are not settled. Personal experience is presented as experience and is not turned into a general rule. Where guidance differs between countries, the article notes that the advice of Indonesian health authorities should be considered first for readers in Indonesia.

• (a) Association is not presented as cause.
• (b) Small or early studies are labelled as such.
• (c) Local guidance is noted where it exists.

4. Sources

Editors prefer reputable public health bodies, systematic reviews, professional guidance, and primary research where appropriate. Sources are checked for date and relevance to the claim.

Examples of sources include the World Health Organization, Indonesia’s Ministry of Health, national and university research institutions, peer-reviewed journals and professional associations. A second editor checks the main claims, figures and links before a page goes live. Sources older than five years are used only when they remain relevant, and the date is stated where it matters. Articles do not rely on anonymous forums, unsourced social media posts or marketing material as evidence.

• (a) Second-editor check before publication.
• (b) Source dates shown where relevant.
• (c) Forums and promotional material not used as evidence.

5. Language

We avoid guaranteed outcomes, miracle claims, shame, fear, and urgency. We use careful verbs and describe uncertainty without making the writing unusably vague.

Editors replace phrases that imply certainty with wording that reflects the evidence, for example “some adults report” instead of a statement that something always works. Before-and-after comparisons, body-shaming language and statements that frighten readers into action are not accepted. Headlines and summaries are written to match the article and are not changed to attract clicks. A style note shared with writers lists terms to avoid and is reviewed twice a year.

• (a) No miracle or outcome claims.
• (b) No shame-based or fear-based framing.
• (c) Headlines match the content.

6. Health boundaries

Articles include appropriate reminders that general information is not diagnosis or treatment. High-risk topics receive stronger direction toward professional care.

Topics that involve medicines, mental health, heart symptoms or long-term conditions include a clear note about speaking with a doctor, pharmacist or other qualified professional. Pages explain which signs call for urgent care and mention Indonesia’s 119 emergency number where it is relevant. Writers do not suggest that a reader stop or change prescribed treatment. The health information disclaimer provides the full statement of these limits.

• (a) Stronger professional direction on higher-risk topics.
• (b) Emergency information where relevant.
• (c) No advice to change prescribed treatment.

7. Local context

Our home context is South Jakarta, Indonesia. We consider local foods, climate, access, and everyday realities without claiming one experience represents every reader.

Examples might refer to tempeh, fish, vegetables and rice, to humid weather that affects outdoor activity, or to the time spent travelling across Jakarta. Prices and services are not assumed, because access to clinics and insurance varies between cities and islands. Writers try to avoid generalising from one neighbourhood to the whole country, and they say when a point applies mostly to urban readers. Readers from other regions are welcome to suggest additional context by writing to the desk.

• (a) Foods and routines reflect common local practice.
• (b) Access and cost differences are acknowledged.
• (c) Reader suggestions on regional context are welcome.

8. Conflicts

Contributors disclose relevant financial or professional conflicts to editors. A conflict does not automatically prevent publication, but it is assessed and may be disclosed.

A conflict can be financial, such as shares in a company, or professional, such as employment by an organisation discussed in an article. Contributors give this information in writing before commissioning, and an editor decides whether the contributor should write the piece, whether another editor should review it, or whether the relationship should be stated in a note. A disclosure appears near the top of the article when it could affect how a reader weighs the content. Records of disclosures are kept for at least 36 months.

• (a) Disclosure before commissioning.
• (b) Independent review where needed.
• (c) Note shown to readers when relevant.

9. Corrections

Readers can report factual or accessibility concerns to [email protected]. Material corrections are made promptly, explained when useful, and dated so readers can follow the record.

10. Updates

Guides are reviewed when evidence, law, or safety information changes. A displayed date describes the latest substantive editorial review, not a promise of continuous monitoring.

11. Advertising separation

Advertising is labelled and kept visually distinct from editorial recommendations. Advertisers cannot alter health conclusions or use reader correspondence for targeting without a lawful basis.

12. Current edition

This policy was updated October 1, 2026. The editorial desk operates from Jl. Cendrawasih No. 88, RT.003/RW.007, Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta, Jakarta 12120, Indonesia.

Further detail on corrections and revisions

• (a) How to report: send the page address and a description of the issue to [email protected], call +62 813 7755 3399, or write to Jl. Cendrawasih No. 88, RT.003/RW.007, Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta, Jakarta 12120, Indonesia.
• (b) Response times: we acknowledge a report within 3 working days and aim to complete a review of a factual concern within 14 days. Significant corrections are marked on the page with a date, and small typographical fixes may be made without a note.
• (c) Review cycle: published pages are re-read at least once every 12 months, and earlier if a source changes or a reader raises a concern.
• (d) Revision log: October 1, 2026 – current edition published, with expanded detail on purpose, independence, evidence, sources, language, health boundaries, local context and conflicts.

Further detail on how articles are made

This note adds practical detail to the sections above and does not replace them. An article moves through four stages: a topic is proposed and checked against reader questions, a writer drafts it using named sources, a second editor reviews wording and claims, and the page is published with a visible date. Editorial responsibility rests with Ratna Wulandari, Chief Editor, supported by Dimas Prasetyo (Managing Editor) and Siti Nurhaliza Hartono (Research and Sources Editor). Sources are preferred in this order: guidance from public health bodies, peer-reviewed research, and professional associations. Anecdotes are not used as evidence.

• (a) Every factual claim about health is traced to a source kept in the editor's notes.
• (b) Language that promises results, or compares people to a standard, is removed during review.
• (c) Articles are revisited at least once every 12 months, or sooner when guidance changes.
• (d) Images are chosen to illustrate a topic and are described in text alternatives; they do not imply endorsement.

Corrections follow a set process. A reader reports an error, the desk confirms receipt within 3 working days, checks the source and, when the error is confirmed, updates the page and adds a dated note stating what changed. Minor spelling fixes are made without a note. Significant corrections stay visible for as long as the article is online. Placid does not use content produced by readers as evidence and does not publish invented reviews or personal stories.

Readers can reach the editorial desk at [email protected], by phone on +62 813 7755 3399, or by post at Jl. Cendrawasih No. 88, RT.003/RW.007, Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta, Jakarta 12120, Indonesia. A full reply is given within about 30 days.

• (a) October 1, 2026: sourcing order, review cycle and corrections steps expanded.