Standards
Editorial policy
Reference material is only worth reading if you know how it was made. This is how ours is made.
Research
Entries are built from veterinary textbooks, peer-reviewed research, professional body guidance and recognised welfare organisations. Where evidence is thin or contested — as it is for many exotic species and several popular training claims — we say so rather than choosing a confident-sounding position.
Review
Health, nutrition and emergency content is reviewed by a veterinary professional before publication. Behaviour and training content is reviewed by a qualified behaviourist. The reviewer is named on the page. Review confirms accuracy; it does not make the page a substitute for examining your animal.
Sourcing
Clinical claims carry references. We prefer primary research and professional guidance over secondary summaries, and we do not cite commercial content as evidence for a health claim.
Independence
No payment is accepted for inclusion, placement or favourable coverage. Product guidance describes categories and criteria rather than ranking brands, so that advice survives product cycles.
Welfare position
Where welfare and convenience conflict, we describe the welfare-first option and explain the trade-off honestly. That includes saying when a popular animal is commonly kept in conditions that harm it, and when a breed's conformation causes predictable suffering.
Updates and corrections
- Review cycle
- Health and safety entries are re-checked when guidance changes, and otherwise on a rolling annual cycle.
- Update stamp
- Every entry shows its publication and last-updated date.
- Corrections
- Factual errors are corrected promptly and the change is reflected in the updated date. Significant changes are noted in the entry.
- Withdrawal
- Guidance that is superseded or found unsafe is removed or rewritten rather than quietly left in place.
See also our medical disclaimer and contributor profiles.