Editorial standards

Purpose and scope

These standards apply to ProteinIQ tool pages, scientific documentation, educational guides, research evidence summaries, company news, and other public content that makes factual or methodological claims.

Our goal is to help researchers understand what a method does, how ProteinIQ runs it, what evidence supports it, and where its limits matter. Editorial review is not independent experimental validation, medical advice, or a substitute for evaluating a method against the requirements of a specific study.

What receives scientific review

• Descriptions of a scientific method, model, database, or software package.
• Version, repository, license, citation, default-setting, unit, and output claims.
• ProteinIQ-specific preparation, validation, execution, storage, and presentation behavior.
• Statements about accuracy, benchmarks, applicability, uncertainty, and known limitations.
• Material updates that change how a reader would understand or use a tool.

Evidence hierarchy

• Primary papers, official source repositories, versioned documentation, standards, and first-party release notes are preferred for factual and technical claims.
• A source must support the specific claim attached to it. A relevant paper is not treated as evidence for every statement on the page.
• Reported benchmarks are attributed to the team or paper that reported them. Vendor or project benchmarks are not presented as independent validation.
• Preprints, peer-reviewed papers, commercial sources, and secondary sources are identified or described clearly enough for readers to weigh them appropriately.
• When reliable sources disagree, the disagreement is described rather than resolved through unsupported editorial certainty.

Scientific tool review workflow

• Identify the canonical software project, method, database, or standard and record the exact version ProteinIQ runs.
• Check the official repository, release, license, primary papers, and relevant documentation.
• Compare public claims with the implemented input handling, defaults, scientific settings, execution path, outputs, units, and downloadable files.
• Separate behavior inherited from the scientific software from preparation, orchestration, validation, and presentation added by ProteinIQ.
• Document limitations that could change interpretation, reproducibility, or safe use of the result.
• Confirm that visible provenance and machine-readable metadata come from the same maintained record before publishing the review date.

Tool-page provenance standard

Where the information is available and relevant, a reviewed scientific tool page identifies the method, software or implementation, version, source repository, license, primary papers, ProteinIQ-specific implementation notes, important limitations, reviewer, and review date.

A missing public field is not replaced with an invented value. When exact provenance cannot be verified, the page should state the uncertainty or omit the claim until it can be supported.

Authorship and reviewer accountability

Named authors are responsible for the accuracy and clarity of their articles. Author pages describe relevant background and link stable external identity profiles where available.

ProteinIQ is currently maintained by its founder, Matic Broz, who also writes and scientifically verifies the published content. When the author performs this check, the page says “scientifically verified” and does not imply independent or peer review.

If another qualified expert reviews a page in the future, ProteinIQ will identify that person by name and link their profile. ProteinIQ does not use a fictional editorial-team identity to imply that more people participated.

A scientific verification date means the cited sources, material claims, implementation description, and limitations were checked together. It does not mean that ProteinIQ independently reproduced every result reported in the cited literature.

Review dates and re-review triggers

A reviewed or updated date changes only after a meaningful factual, methodological, implementation, or editorial review. Grammar, layout, and cosmetic changes do not make content scientifically newer.

• The underlying software, model, database, or scientific standard changes version.
• ProteinIQ changes a default, preparation step, validation rule, execution path, output, or scientific label.
• A new primary paper or official source materially changes the method description or limitations.
• A correction reveals that a claim, citation, version, unit, or limitation is incomplete or inaccurate.

Conflicts and commercial context

ProteinIQ publishes information about tools available through its own platform. That commercial relationship is visible through product links and implementation context, while scientific claims remain tied to external evidence.

Availability on ProteinIQ is not presented as independent evidence that a method is accurate or appropriate for a particular study. Sponsored content, if introduced, will be clearly labeled and will not purchase favorable conclusions or suppress material limitations.

Corrections, challenges, and AI assistance

Researchers can challenge a claim by sending the page URL, the statement in question, and supporting evidence to support@proteiniq.io. Material corrections are reviewed against the cited source, software release, implementation, or relevant standard.

AI systems may assist with outlining, editing, summarization, inventory work, and consistency checks. AI output is not treated as evidence, and responsibility for source selection, factual claims, citations, and published conclusions remains with ProteinIQ.

• Read the corrections policy
• Read the content and AI methodology