Editorial Standards | Forensic Psychology

The standard in one sentence

Every article should help readers see what the evidence supports, where the answer may change and when a qualified professional is needed.

Purpose and editorial scope

Forensic Psychology is an independent educational publication about the meeting point between psychology, law and human behavior. We write primarily for U.S. readers, including students, future professionals, families and people trying to understand a complex field.

Our purpose is explanation, not personal assessment. Articles may discuss careers, education, research, ethics, courts and professional practice, but they do not diagnose a reader, evaluate a legal case or replace advice from a licensed clinician, lawyer, university or licensing authority.

We aim to be useful without sounding more certain than the evidence allows. A clear limitation is more responsible than a confident answer built on missing context.

Source standards and evidence hierarchy

Sources are chosen for relevance, authority, recency and closeness to the original claim. When a primary source is available, we prefer it over a summary of that source.

Depending on the question, our research may include:

Peer-reviewed systematic reviews, meta-analyses and original research
Federal and state government publications, statutes, regulations and court materials
Licensing boards and official professional standards
Established psychology, legal and public health organizations
Accredited universities and original program information
Responsible secondary reporting when it adds necessary context

A source is not treated as reliable merely because it appears high in search results. We look for the document behind the claim, check the date and ask whether the source applies to the role, population and jurisdiction being discussed.

How an article is developed

Each article begins with the reader's actual question. Before drafting, we identify the claims that need evidence, the terms that may confuse a newcomer and the details that could change the answer.

The working process normally includes:

Defining the question, audience and boundaries of the article
Finding original and authoritative sources
Comparing evidence that agrees, conflicts or applies only in limited settings
Writing in plain language while preserving important qualifications
Checking names, dates, definitions, statistics, links and jurisdiction-specific statements
Editing for structure, accuracy, tone and reader understanding
Seeking qualified review when a claim requires specialized clinical, legal or professional judgment

Publication is not the end of the process. Pages may be reviewed again when research, laws, licensing rules or professional standards change.

See how we work

Psychology, law and jurisdiction

Forensic psychology cannot be explained responsibly without context. A research finding, a clinical opinion and a legal rule are different kinds of claims, even when they appear in the same case or article.

We try to identify which kind of claim is being made and where it applies. Licensing requirements, protected titles, court procedures and professional duties can change by state, role and setting. When the answer is jurisdiction-specific, the article should name the jurisdiction or explain that readers must check the current local rule.

Examples and educational explanations are not predictions about how a court, evaluator or licensing board will decide an individual matter. Our Disclaimer explains these limits in more detail.

Authorship, expertise and outside review

Readers should be able to understand who is responsible for the work. Author information describes relevant education, professional background and writing experience without suggesting that one person's experience covers every specialty.

Some topics need another qualified perspective. We may seek review from a psychologist, lawyer, educator, researcher or other subject specialist when the content depends on practice-specific judgment. A review checks the relevant claims and boundaries; it does not transfer authorship or guarantee that no error remains.

We use the term peer review only when referring to a formal scholarly peer-review process. Editorial or expert review for this website is described in those terms instead.

Corrections, updates and article dates

Accuracy matters more than defending an old draft. When a factual error is confirmed, we correct it as soon as reasonably possible. A material correction may include a note explaining what changed. Minor grammar, formatting or clarity edits may be made without a correction note when they do not change the meaning.

Article dates help readers judge recency. A page may show a publication date, an updated date or both. An updated date should reflect a meaningful review or revision, not a cosmetic change made only to appear current.

If evidence remains unsettled, we may revise the wording to show the disagreement rather than choosing a certainty the sources do not support.

AI and automated tools

Automated tools may support tasks such as organizing notes, checking readability, finding possible inconsistencies or maintaining the website. They do not replace source review, professional judgment or human editorial responsibility.

We do not knowingly publish invented quotations, fabricated citations or unsupported claims generated by a tool. Sources must be opened and checked, and the final article must be reviewed by a person before publication.

When automated assistance materially affects content in a way readers should know about, we may add an appropriate disclosure.

Editorial independence and conflicts

Editorial conclusions should follow the evidence, not a payment, partnership or preferred outcome. A university, employer, product or professional organization does not receive favorable treatment merely because it is mentioned or linked.

If sponsored content, affiliate relationships or another material financial connection is introduced, it should be clearly disclosed where a reader can see it. Payment would not guarantee a positive conclusion or remove the need for evidence and editorial review.

Writers and reviewers should disclose a conflict that could reasonably affect their judgment. When a conflict cannot be managed transparently, the assignment should be changed or declined.

Reader feedback and correction requests

Readers often notice a changed rule, a broken source or a missing qualification before an editor does. Specific feedback helps us review the issue quickly.

Please include the page URL, the statement you believe needs attention, the reason it may be inaccurate and any original source that supports the correction. We review credible requests, but we may not change a conclusion when the available evidence still supports it.

Request an editorial correction