HEER Africa logo HEERAfrica
Partner with us
HEER Evidence Editorial Policy

How we review evidence

HEER Evidence is an evidence-translation platform, not a scientific journal. We do not conduct peer review of the studies we feature. Instead, we assess the source, publication status, research design, transparency, potential conflicts of interest, and relevance before deciding whether and how to feature a piece of research.

Our guiding principle

Evidence before amplification

We do not amplify health claims simply because they are interesting, new, or scientifically impressive. We assess the source and evidence status, clearly communicate uncertainty and limitations, distinguish research findings from interpretation, and update or correct our content when new evidence changes the picture.

Why this matters

Once we put a health claim in front of the public, people may treat it as trustworthy simply because it appears on a nonprofit health organization's website. That can happen even when the underlying work is unpublished, a preprint, a student project, a conference abstract, an opinion piece, based on a small sample, not peer reviewed, contradicted by stronger evidence, or later retracted. We don't try to design around that risk. We design it into the product, by making evidence status visible on everything we publish.

Evidence status, on every entry

Every HEER Evidence brief carries one of the labels below, shown clearly at the top of the piece. We don't use a single catch-all "Research" category.

Published researchPeer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.
PreprintPublicly available but has not yet undergone formal peer review. Findings should be interpreted cautiously and may change following review.
Early findingPresented at a scientific meeting or conference, but not necessarily published as a full research article.
Policy evidenceA policy brief, institutional report, or evidence synthesis: valuable, but not the same thing as a peer-reviewed study.
Expert perspectiveCommentary, opinion, or a framework from someone with relevant expertise, not presented as a research finding.
Under review / unverifiedWe are generally restrictive here. If a researcher sends us an unpublished manuscript, our default answer is to wait until it has been formally published or made available through a recognized research platform.

We deliberately don't use a badge like "HEER Approved Research." A label like that could be read as scientific certification, which we don't do. Instead, every piece is described as "Featured by HEER Evidence": curation and translation, not validation.

What we check before featuring anything

Source

  • Is there an identifiable researcher and institution?
  • Is there an original source, such as a DOI, journal link, repository record, or other persistent identifier?

Research status

  • Peer reviewed, preprint, conference abstract, thesis, policy report, or opinion/commentary?

Scientific quality (at a basic level)

  • What type of study is it, how large, and where and with whom was it conducted?
  • What are the major limitations, and are the conclusions actually supported by the results?
  • Does the language stay honest about association versus causation?

Our review workflow

The researcher gets to check whether we've represented their work accurately, but they don't get final editorial control over the piece. That distinction protects both the researcher's work and our credibility.

Researcher submits
→
We check the original source
→
We write the public explanation
→
Researcher fact-checks
→
HEER editorial review
→
Publication

Findings vs. interpretation

Every brief separates what the study actually found from what we (or the researcher) think it could mean. That prevents an interpretation from being mistaken for a finding.

What the study found

Women experiencing X had higher levels of Y.

What this could mean

This may suggest that healthcare providers should consider X when supporting women with Y.

"What we still don't know" is mandatory

Every brief includes an explicit section on the limits of the evidence, for example, that a study shows an association but not causation, or that findings from one country can't be assumed to apply directly elsewhere, including across African contexts. Science isn't simply true or false; evidence comes in degrees of confidence, and we want readers to see that.

Funding and conflicts of interest

Every brief discloses how the underlying research was funded and whether the authors report any conflicts of interest. For example, a study funded by a company whose product it evaluates is disclosed as such. This follows the same principle international medical journal editors apply: readers deserve to know who funded the work before they weigh its conclusions.

Human-subjects research

We don't independently audit every study's ethics approval. But if something obviously raises concerns (identifiable patient information, questionable consent, or inappropriate use of vulnerable populations), we don't publish it simply because a researcher submitted it.

Corrections and retractions

Example: if a study we've featured is later retracted or substantially corrected, the HEER Evidence page for it is updated to say so, clearly, at the top of the piece, not quietly removed.

Every HEER Evidence brief includes a "Report an issue with this evidence" link, so readers, the original researcher, or anyone else can flag a concern for editorial review.