Editorial standards#

StudyGeology.org aims to publish geology education that is understandable, traceable to sources, visually useful, and realistic about uncertainty. These standards describe how evidence and attribution are handled; they are not a claim of independent scientific peer review.

Content is produced with AI assistance under the Study Geology Editorial Desk and Study Geology Verification Desk role aliases. No human contributor, credential, affiliation, quotation or review event is invented to make a page appear more authoritative.

When a page should exist#

A lesson should have:

  • one defined reader and one clear task;
  • a question that is not already answered by another lesson;
  • enough primary, official, or scholarly evidence;
  • useful explanation, data, comparison, or visual reasoning beyond a generic summary;
  • a specific relationship to the rest of the site;
  • a proportionate scientific, historical, rights, and safety review plan;
  • a maintenance plan and a useful reason for readers to return to it.

Closely related questions belong together when separate pages would repeat the same explanation. The project does not create lessons solely to increase page count or target minor wording variations.

Sources and citations#

Sources are selected in this order where appropriate:

  • original scientific papers, historical works, official standards, surveys, observatories, archives, maps, reports, and data;
  • peer-reviewed research, university-press books, specialist histories, and academic reference works;
  • established museums, professional societies, universities, and specialist educational resources;
  • general secondary sources for orientation, never as the sole basis for an important scientific or historical claim.

An unattributed blog, recycled search page, seller, quotation aggregator, homework-answer site, or generic AI output is not sufficient evidence for a material claim. Citations should sit next to the statement, table row, or figure they support. A bibliography at the bottom does not repair unsupported prose.

Old books and papers document what an author wrote. They do not by themselves prove modern scientific correctness, influence, or priority. Historical interpretation requires attention to edition, translation, context, competing candidates, and later scholarship.

Numerical claims should identify what was measured or estimated, the unit and scope, the method, meaningful uncertainty, the source, and whether the value is current, historical, or illustrative. Current standards must identify their authority, version, and check date.

Scientific and historical language#

The writing distinguishes:

  • direct observation from interpretation;
  • measurement from model output;
  • relative order from numerical age;
  • strong consensus from a live dispute;
  • a historical belief from a current explanation;
  • a model or reconstruction from a direct view.

Words such as "first," "father," "founder," "invented," "proved," and "discovered" require a defined category and evidence that considers competing claims. When qualified sources disagree, the page should state the disagreement, criteria, and confidence instead of silently selecting the most convenient story.

Authorship, review, and AI assistance#

Study Geology is the publisher display name. Study Geology Editorial Desk is the role-based author attribution. Study Geology Verification Desk is the role-based verification attribution. These aliases do not represent individual people, degrees, professional licenses or a registered legal entity.

AI assists with organizing sources, drafting source-grounded explanations, transforming data and implementing the site. It is not cited as evidence. Source checks and automated tests can identify problems in citations, data, links and rendered pages; they cannot certify every scientific or historical interpretation. Verification-role attribution is not a claim of independent human review, scientific peer review or professional approval.

Material facts, quotations, dates, numbers, labels and rights need support that can be checked independently of the generated text. Scientific review, when obtained, should examine mechanisms, definitions, numerical accuracy, uncertainty and figures. Historical review should examine source identity, priority, anachronism, quotations, translations and context.

A human contributor or reviewer is named only after a real contribution and an agreed scope are documented. Dates describe actual events. No independent human scientific or historical review is claimed for these lessons.

Visuals, data, and rights#

Every figure should have a defined teaching purpose, factual source notes, a caption, descriptive alternative text, responsive behavior, and a rights record. A diagram must be labeled as a model or reconstruction when that distinction matters. Meaning must not depend on color alone, and an interactive visual must retain a useful text or table equivalent.

An image visible online is not automatically reusable. Rights in an old object may differ from rights in a modern photograph, scan, restoration, or map rendering. The preferred order is original work based on traceable facts, item-specific public-domain material, appropriately licensed institutional media, and commissioned work with a written agreement. A credible rights complaint requires prompt removal while the claim is checked.

Downloads must identify their format, version, field meanings, and license. Internal source manifests, research notes, and rights assessments are not automatically public datasets.

Corrections#

Durable lessons and historical explanations should receive periodic source and link checks. Versioned standards, formal stratigraphic status, institutional details, rights, and software require more frequent checking. Live hazard status must come from the responsible authority and should not be copied into an evergreen article as if it will remain current.

The following date labels are not interchangeable:

  • First published is the actual public release date.
  • Last modified may include technical or copy changes.
  • Last scientifically reviewed means a qualified person completed that review on the stated date.
  • Standards checked identifies the official version and the date it was checked.

Material errors should be corrected openly. A visible note is appropriate when a change affects meaning, scientific interpretation, historical attribution, a numerical value, safety, or a reader decision. Minor spelling and formatting changes do not need a public correction entry.

A contact address or submission form should appear only when it is configured, monitored and has appropriate privacy handling. An editorial alias does not imply a monitored inbox or a promise of a response. Readers can inspect the linked sources to check a claim; contact details or human review are never invented to fill a missing field.

Safety and hazard boundaries#

The site may explain earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, field methods, and other geological subjects. It does not operate a monitoring network, issue alerts, predict a specified event, assess a property, authorize access, or replace local emergency instructions and qualified professional advice.

Current alert levels, closures, evacuation orders, and site conditions belong to the responsible local authority. Educational pages must not answer whether a particular house, slope, quarry, cave, coast, or volcano is safe today. Any statement that could create a false sense of safety receives urgent correction or removal.

Measurement and retirement#

Search performance, reading behavior, accessibility findings, source use, educator feedback, and corrections should guide improvement after launch. A page may be merged, redirected, archived, or removed when its task duplicates another page, its evidence cannot be maintained, or it no longer gives readers distinct value. Useful source and correction history should be preserved when a page changes status.