PlusGBUK treats factual checking as part of editing, not as a final box to tick after publication. The level of checking depends on the claim. A general definition and a statement about overdose risk do not carry the same consequences if they are wrong.
What we check
We check material claims about pharmacology, medical uses, adverse effects, interactions, dependence, withdrawal, emergency risks, legal classification, regulation and public-health guidance against sources appropriate to the claim.
Numbers receive particular attention. Statistics can look authoritative even when they come from a narrow population, an old dataset or a study that cannot support the conclusion being drawn. When the population, timeframe or method materially changes the meaning of a figure, that context should appear with it.
Conflicting evidence
Research does not always point in one direction. We do not resolve genuine scientific uncertainty by selecting the study with the strongest headline. Where credible evidence conflicts, the article should describe the uncertainty and, where useful, explain why the studies may differ.
Law and regulation
Legal claims should be checked against legislation, regulators, government guidance or another authoritative legal source. Because laws change and differ by jurisdiction, an article should not present a rule from one country as though it applies everywhere.
Reader corrections
If you believe a PlusGBUK page contains a factual error, send the page URL, the statement you believe is wrong and any supporting source to [email protected]. We review substantive correction requests rather than changing material simply because a reader disagrees with an evidence-based conclusion.