Dreva Almanac
Editorial Standards — Revision 01 — January 2026

Process.Record.Standard.

How Dreva Almanac selects, reviews, and publishes its editorial content — the sourcing criteria, the review sequence, the standards applied to factual claims, and the disclosure obligations that govern all contributions.

01

Editorial Principles

Governing framework — 2026

Dreva Almanac operates under the following editorial principles: articles are reviewed by at least one second editor before publication, sources are cited where appropriate, corrections are noted publicly, and writers disclose any commercial relationships that could influence their selection of subject matter.

These principles are not aspirational; they are operational requirements that apply to every piece published under the Dreva Almanac name. They exist because the publication's value depends on the reliability of its editorial judgement, and reliability requires a systematic, documented approach to the selection and verification of content.

Dreva Almanac is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body. No content is commissioned or influenced by commercial arrangements. This independence is the precondition for the editorial principles above to function.

02

Review Sequence

01
Pitch and Scope Review

All proposed pieces are reviewed against the publication's thematic scope before assignment. Scope criteria include: relevance to the diet cycle, sustainable eating habits, food relationship awareness, or the broader field of nutritional habit formation. Pieces that fall outside this scope are not commissioned regardless of writing quality.

02
Source Verification

Factual claims that reference published research require a verifiable source. The publication prioritises peer-reviewed research and grey literature from recognised professional bodies. All sources are checked for accuracy of citation by the editorial reviewer before publication. Unsupported claims are either removed or converted to clearly framed observations.

03
Second Editorial Review

Every article undergoes review by a second editor who was not involved in the commissioning or drafting of the piece. The second reviewer checks for factual accuracy, tonal consistency with the publication's register, and compliance with the vocabulary standards outlined in the editorial guidelines. Reviews are logged against article reference numbers.

04
Disclosure Review

Before publication, all contributing writers are required to complete a brief disclosure statement confirming the absence of commercial relationships that could influence the content. Any disclosed relationships are noted in the article's author bio. Writers who decline to complete the disclosure are not published.

05
Publication and Post-Publication Monitoring

Published articles are subject to post-publication correction if factual errors are identified. Corrections are documented in the article with a timestamped notice. Major revisions that substantially alter the article's argument result in an update note at the top of the piece. Removed articles are listed in a public archive log.

03

Sourcing Standards

Evidence criteria — v1.0
Peer-Reviewed Research

The publication's primary evidential standard. Claims drawn from peer-reviewed research are the most thoroughly sourced and require explicit citation. The publication does not distinguish between academic disciplines — research from nutritional science, behavioural psychology, and eating behaviour scholarship are all eligible sources where their findings are relevant to the subject matter.

Professional and Institutional Literature

Guidance documents, position papers, and reports from recognised professional bodies in nutrition and eating behaviour are acceptable secondary sources. These are cited as institutional rather than peer-reviewed sources, and their status is not conflated with primary research in the text.

Observational Accounts

Some Dreva Almanac pieces — including the field notes format — are explicitly observational rather than research-referencing. These are clearly framed as observational accounts, not as summaries of research findings. The publication maintains a clear distinction between articles that draw on published evidence and those that offer observational or editorial commentary.

Inadmissible Sources

Commercial white papers, brand-funded studies, and promotional materials are not accepted as sources. Personal testimonials and anecdotal accounts are not used as evidential support for factual claims, though they may be used as illustrative context when clearly identified as such.

04

Content Notice

Regulatory position — 2026

Articles published on Dreva Almanac are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices. The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional.

Dreva Almanac is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.

We recommend speaking with a qualified wellness or nutrition professional before introducing any new habit or routine to your daily life, particularly if you have specific dietary requirements.

05

Standards Q&A

Standard
Peer-reviewed sourcing
Review
Second-editor check on every article
Independence
No commercial affiliations
Corrections
Timestamped and public