How the Work Gets Done
Telun Press operates under a defined set of editorial principles. The following account describes the process by which articles are selected, written, reviewed, and published — and the standards against which they are held.
Editorial Principles
Telun Press 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.
The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body. Its editorial independence is a core operating condition, not a rhetorical claim. No article is published in exchange for payment, and no writer's compensation is connected to the performance of individual pieces.
Articles published on Telun Press 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.
From Proposal to Publication
Topic Proposal
A writer or editor proposes a topic. The proposal must reference at least two published research sources and outline the editorial angle. The editorial board reviews proposals monthly.
Source Review
All referenced research is independently reviewed by the editorial team. Sources are assessed for publication date, journal standing, and relevance to the article's scope. Grey literature is used sparingly.
First Draft
The writer produces a first draft of 1,200 to 2,000 words. The draft must adhere to the publication's vocabulary standards and avoid speculative claims that go beyond the source material.
Editorial Review
A second editor reviews the draft for factual accuracy, tone consistency, and source fidelity. Comments are returned within five working days. The writer addresses each comment before the piece advances.
Publication
The approved piece is published with a datestamp, the writer's name, and a reading-time estimate. Published articles remain on record and are updated when a material factual change requires it.
Source Standards
The publication draws primarily on peer-reviewed research published in indexed journals. Writers are expected to link to or cite the original source rather than secondary summaries. Where a study's findings are described, the publication date and journal are noted inline or in a reference block at the foot of the article.
Research that is more than ten years old is used only when it represents foundational material with no updated replacement, or when the historical context is the subject of the article itself. All such instances are flagged within the text.
The editorial team maintains a shared reference library for recurring topics — including behavioural change, self-regulation and eating, and the psychology of habit formation. Writers working in these areas are expected to consult the library before proposing new sources, to ensure consistency across the publication's coverage.
Peer-reviewed journals, published research papers, and academic conference proceedings.
Reputable science journalism, NHS guidance, and institutional reports from recognised bodies.
Anecdotal testimonials, promotional content, unverified social media claims, and preprint-only research.
Corrections and Disclosure
Telun Press publishes corrections when a factual error is verified. The correction appears at the foot of the original article as a clearly labelled note, with the date of the correction and a brief description of what changed. The original text is not altered; the correction exists alongside it so that the record of the change is transparent.
Writers are required to declare, at the time of submission, any relationship — professional, financial, or personal — that could create an appearance of bias in their handling of a topic. Declarations are reviewed by the lead editor. Where a conflict is judged to be material, the piece is either reassigned to another writer or the declaration is published alongside the article.
The publication does not accept editorial direction from advertisers, sponsors, or partner organisations. The separation between editorial and commercial activity is observed as an absolute standard.
Content Scope and Limits
The publication covers the intersection of everyday eating habits, behavioural patterns, and long-term weight stability from an evidence-informed perspective. This scope is intentionally defined. Articles that fall outside it — covering acute conditions, weight-related interventions requiring professional supervision, or extreme nutritional protocols — are not published.
The publication does not produce content that could be construed as instructing readers on specific programmes, restrictive routines, or time-bound approaches. The register is observational and documentary, not prescriptive.
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.
Writing Standards
Writers describe what the research observes, not what readers should do. The third-person observational register is the publication's default voice.
Superlatives, absolute claims, and unattributed statistics are not used. Every quantitative claim traces to a named source.
Technical terminology is defined at first use. The target reader is an informed adult without a specialist background in nutrition science or behavioural psychology.
Articles do not use alarm-based framing, crisis language, or competitive comparisons ("the only approach that works"). Measured language is a standing requirement.
Product endorsements, affiliate links, and promotional mentions are not included in editorial content. The editorial and commercial arms of the publication are separated absolutely.
Articles do not instruct readers to follow specific routines or targets. The publication describes what research notes, not what readers must do.
Standards FAQ
The publication operates with a small editorial team of two full-time editors and a rotating pool of guest writers. The team's backgrounds are in science journalism, behavioural research, and long-form wellness writing. Individual editor names are listed on the About page. The board does not include external advisors from commercial organisations.
When a topic involves research that is actively contested in the academic literature, the article is expected to represent both positions. The publication does not take sides in ongoing research debates. Writers are required to note where consensus is absent and to describe the nature of the disagreement rather than selecting whichever finding supports their preferred angle.
If a key source cited in a published article is retracted, the editorial team reviews the article within fourteen days of becoming aware of the retraction. If the article's central argument relied materially on the retracted source, a correction or clarification note is appended. The article is not removed unless its core conclusions are entirely unsupported without the retracted material.
Reader correspondence is reviewed quarterly by the editorial team and informs the planning of future topics. However, editorial decisions remain independent. The frequency of reader requests on a subject is one input into planning, not a binding instruction. Topics driven entirely by audience demand, rather than by evidence-based interest, are not published.