Editorial standards#

StudyGeology.org aims to publish geology education that is accurate, understandable, source-verifiable, visually useful, and realistic about uncertainty. These standards describe the publication process and its accountability controls.

A draft remains visibly labeled and non-indexable until its required review and publication data are complete. No author, reviewer, credential, affiliation, quotation, or review status may be invented to make a draft appear more authoritative.

When a page should exist#

An indexable page must have:

  • one defined reader and one clear task;
  • a distinct search intent that is not already owned by another page;
  • 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 schedule and a measurable reason to retain it.

Topics are merged, deferred, kept as non-indexable research, or rejected when they do not meet those conditions. The project does not create pages 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#

An author is a real person who made a substantial contribution to research, analysis, and writing. A scientific reviewer checks definitions, mechanisms, numerical accuracy, uncertainty, figures, safety boundaries, and use of standards. A historical reviewer checks source identity, priority, anachronism, quotations, translations, and institutional framing.

A reviewer is named only after receiving the relevant version, agreeing to the scope, seeing material comments addressed or documented, and approving the reviewed version. Review dates describe real events. A copy edit, automated check, or AI-assisted review is not scientific or peer review.

AI tools may assist with organizing sources, identifying inconsistencies, drafting source-grounded prose, transforming reviewed material into structured formats, and proposing visual or quiz structures. Material facts, citations, quotations, dates, numbers, labels, and rights still require verification. Human editorial responsibility cannot be delegated to a tool.

When contributor identities or named reviews are unavailable, pages state that limitation rather than substitute a fictional editorial team.

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 public build must provide a monitored contact route only after its privacy handling, retention, and security have been defined and tested. Review builds identify the missing route as a launch limitation.

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.