Editorial policy

Who writes, and who reviews

Two different people. Always.

Writers are health journalists and medical writers. They research and draft, and their name appears on the page. A writer is never described as a doctor unless they hold a current licence to practise.

Reviewers are licensed physicians reviewing inside their own specialty. A cardiologist does not sign off a dermatology article. The reviewer reads the finished draft, checks every clinical claim against its source, and either approves it or sends it back. Their name, credentials, specialty and the date they signed appear at the top of the article.

If a page carries no reviewer name, it has not been through clinical review, and it will say so plainly rather than implying otherwise.

What counts as evidence

We work down this ladder and stop at the highest rung that answers the question. If nothing on the ladder supports a claim, the claim does not go in — we don't soften it into a "may help" and publish it anyway.

Sources are linked to the primary study or guideline, not to a news article about it. Where a linked source sits behind a paywall, we say what it found rather than expecting readers to buy it.

What we will not publish

Most editorial policies list what a site does. The more useful list is what it refuses to do, because that is where health publishing usually goes wrong.

• Dosing instructions or self-treatment protocols for conditions that need supervision.
• Anything framed to help a reader diagnose themselves in place of seeing a clinician.
• The words cure, miracle, breakthrough or guaranteed applied to a treatment.
• Fear-first openings that describe a frightening outcome and then route the reader straight to a paid consultation.
• Before-and-after body imagery, goal weights, or calorie targets presented as advice.
• Promotion of treatments that are unlicensed in the market the reader is browsing from.
• Any suggestion that a Doctiplus consultation is an appropriate response to an emergency.
• Content written to rank for a symptom search that has no clinical substance behind it.

How often we re-check

Medical guidance moves. A page that was accurate in 2024 can be wrong now, so every article carries a review date and enters a scheduled re-check.

The last row overrides the others. When a national body updates guidance on something we cover, the affected pages are pulled into review immediately and unpublished if they cannot be corrected within two weeks.

Where AI is and isn't used

We use AI tools. Pretending otherwise in 2026 would be dishonest, so here is the line.

Permitted

• Drafting outlines and suggesting structure before a writer begins.
• Cleaning up interview transcripts and reviewer notes.
• Drafting alt text, meta descriptions and plain-language summaries, all checked by a person before publication.
• Flagging pages that may have fallen out of date.

Not permitted

• Generating clinical claims, statistics, or citations. Every figure on this site was read off its source by a human.
• Standing in for physician review, or summarising a study a reviewer has not read.
• Producing a finished article that goes live with light edits.
• Writing or generating doctor biographies, credentials, or patient reviews.

Money and independence

Doctiplus earns from consultation bookings, from doctors and clinics listing on the platform, and from commercial relationships with insurance partners. That creates obvious pressure on what we publish, so these are the rules that hold it back.

• Position in search results and specialty listings is never for sale. Ranking follows verification status, relevance and patient feedback, and a doctor who pays more does not appear higher.
• Reviewers are not told which doctors, clinics or insurers have a commercial relationship with us.
• No advertiser or partner sees an article before it publishes, and none has the right to request changes after.
• We publish criticism of our own partners' products where the evidence supports it. An insurance partner's plan being poor value is a fact, not a conflict.
• Any page carrying a commercial relationship says so at the top of that page, not only here.
• Editorial staff are not paid bonuses tied to consultation volume.

Doctor profiles and patient reviews

A Doctiplus profile is a factual record, not a recommendation. It states what we verified and when we verified it, and the verification date is shown on the profile so you can judge how fresh it is.

Profile text is drawn from the doctor's own submission and from primary credential checks: licence status with the national authority, board certification, hospital affiliation, and professional standing. Doctors may correct factual errors about themselves. They may not add marketing claims, and they cannot edit their own reviews.

Reviews

Only patients with a confirmed, completed appointment can leave one. We remove reviews that identify third parties, contain clinical allegations that belong in front of a regulator rather than on a review page, or appear to be bought. We do not remove a review because it is negative, and doctors cannot pay to have one taken down.

Corrections

Typos and broken links are fixed silently. Anything that changes meaning gets a dated note at the foot of the article, and the note stays permanently — we don't quietly delete the evidence that we were wrong. Where an error could have affected a health decision, the note moves to the top of the page.

If a claim cannot be substantiated on re-check, the page comes down rather than staying up with the claim softened.

What this site is not

Doctiplus publishes health information and connects you to licensed doctors. The articles are not medical advice, they are not a diagnosis, and no amount of editorial rigour makes reading a web page equivalent to being examined by a clinician who knows your history.

If you are having a medical emergency, contact your local emergency number or go to an emergency department. Do not book a consultation and wait.