This page explains how the Unstuck Journal decides what to publish, what counts as a reliable source, how claims are checked, and how articles are kept current. It sits alongside the editorial policy, which describes who writes and reviews each article, and the corrections policy, which describes how we fix errors.
1. What we publish, and what we do not
The Unstuck Journal publishes plain-English articles about everyday wellness topics: journaling, sleep, overthinking, doomscrolling, gentle reminders, routines, and small mental resets. Articles describe common experiences, suggest low-cost everyday behaviors, and point readers toward professional care when that is the right next step.
The Journal does not publish personalized medical advice, diagnosis, treatment plans, medication guidance, or individualized risk assessment. It is not a substitute for care from a licensed clinician. See Safety for crisis resources and the limits of a wellness app.
2. Source hierarchy
When an article makes a factual claim about how the mind or body works, we prefer sources in roughly this order:
- Government and public-health bodies: NIMH, NIH and MedlinePlus, CDC, SAMHSA, NHS (UK), and NICE (UK).
- Professional and academic bodies: the American Psychological Association and comparable specialty organizations.
- Peer-reviewed research, summarized in plain English, with a preference for systematic reviews and well-designed studies over single small studies.
- Reputable clinician-reviewed health publishers, such as Harvard Health Publishing, Cleveland Clinic, and the Sleep Foundation, used as plain-language explainers rather than primary evidence.
We avoid citing commercial pages selling a product as evidence for a health claim, and we do not treat a single anecdote, testimonial, or social-media post as evidence.
3. How claims are checked
An article does not ship until:
- Each health-related factual claim is traced to a source in the hierarchy above.
- The claim is described in language that does not overstate what the source actually supports.
- A board-certified psychiatrist, Shariq Refai, MD, MBA, FAPA, reviews the article for clinical accuracy and scope before publication, as described on the Medical Review Board page.
4. How we describe uncertainty
Mental wellness research is often mixed or evolving. Where the evidence is limited, preliminary, or contested, we say so in plain English rather than presenting it as settled. We try to separate what is well established, what is promising but uncertain, and what is simply common experience.
5. Currency and review cadence
Every article carries a published date and a reviewed date, and an updated date when it has been meaningfully revised. We aim to review the Journal on at least a quarterly cadence. When newer or stronger evidence changes the picture, we update the article and bump its reviewed or updated date rather than leaving outdated guidance in place.
6. AI assistance and human review
This website may use AI-assisted tools to support drafting, organization, summarization, grammar review, and editorial workflows. AI tools do not independently publish content. Medical content undergoes human review and editorial oversight before publication. AI does not replace human review, medical judgment, diagnosis, or treatment decisions. The full detail is on the AI Use and Editorial Assistance page.
7. Corrections
If you believe an article misstates the evidence or cites a source incorrectly, please tell us. Email corrections@beunstuck.app with the article URL and the specific issue. Our process for reviewing and publishing corrections is on the corrections policy page.