Editorial Guidelines

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of these editorial guidelines

These editorial guidelines ensure that all content published on PhysioDock.com is:

Trustworthy — grounded in reliable sources and professional expertise.
High quality — carefully crafted, accurate, and relevant to physiotherapists and healthcare professionals.
Open and transparent — with clear rules for sourcing, review, and publication.

1.2 Scope and applicability

These guidelines apply to all content on PhysioDock.com, including:

Articles and professional texts — covering physiotherapy topics, treatment methods, tests, and outcome measures.
Blog posts — personal reflections, experiences, and practical tips from physiotherapists.
Video and multimedia — demonstrations of exercises, treatment techniques, and interviews.
AI-generated content — texts and responses created by PhysioDock-AI, which uses the DeepSeek API.

1.3 Commitment to follow the guidelines

Everyone contributing content to PhysioDock.com—staff, freelancers, guest contributors, or users of AI tools—commits to:

Adhere to these guidelines in full.
Deliver content that is accurate, objective, and compliant with applicable laws and ethical standards.
Cite sources, obtain necessary permissions, and respect copyright.

1.4 Last updated

These editorial guidelines were last updated: [18.02.2025].
Updates are published on a rolling basis, and all contributors are responsible for staying current.

2.0 EDITORIAL INTEGRITY & INDEPENDENCE

2.1 Objectivity and professional quality

All content on PhysioDock.com must:

Be based on current research and reputable sources within physiotherapy and health.
Prioritize evidence-based approaches, including peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
Be reviewed and updated regularly to reflect the latest practice and research findings.

2.2 Balanced professional perspectives

Content must:

Present balanced coverage of different professional perspectives, theories, and practice areas within physiotherapy.
Allow room for discussion and reflect the breadth of professional viewpoints, including controversies and evolving evidence.
Disclose any conflicts of interest of contributors or interviewees openly.

2.3 Labelling statements from external experts

When external experts provide statements, assessments, or insights, clearly label with:

Full name.
Title and professional affiliation (e.g., “Physiotherapist, Specialist in Manual Therapy”).

External statements reflect the expert’s professional view and not necessarily PhysioDock’s position.

2.4 Key points on editorial integrity

Evidence-based: Information must be professionally grounded and current.
Balanced: Content should be objective and accommodate differing professional views.
Clear expert attribution: External voices are clearly labelled.
Integrity first: The editorial team maintains high professional standards and independence.

3.0 INDEPENDENCE FROM COMMERCIAL INTERESTS

3.1 Editorial independence

The editorial team at PhysioDock.com is fully independent from commercial interests, including sponsors, advertisers, and partners. No external party may influence topic selection, content, or conclusions.

3.2 No financial influence on content

Editorial content must never be shaped, altered, or controlled by:

Sponsors advertising on PhysioDock.com.
Commercial partners, vendors, or any service/product providers featured on the platform.

All content remains professionally anchored and independent—even where the site receives financial support through ads or sponsored posts.

3.3 Clear labelling of sponsored content

All content that is:

Sponsored (funded by a third party), or
Part of a paid collaboration (including promoted products or services),

must be clearly labelled at the top of the article, video, or page as “Sponsored content,” “Advertisement,” or “Paid partnership,” with an explanation of who sponsored it and how (e.g., written in collaboration with a vendor).

3.4 Key points on commercial independence

Editorial is independent of sponsors and economic interests.
Content is not influenced by payments, ads, or partnerships.
Sponsored material is clearly labelled with sponsor details.
Professional integrity takes precedence over commercial considerations.

4.0 AI-GENERATED CONTENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE

4.1 Quality assurance of AI-generated content

All AI-generated content on PhysioDock.com must be:

Reviewed and edited by a qualified professional with relevant physiotherapy expertise before publication to ensure it is:
- Professionally accurate and current.
- Aligned with applicable physiotherapy guidelines and standards.
- Audience-appropriate and accessible without losing professional rigor.

4.2 Labelling AI-generated content

Where contextually relevant, clearly inform readers that:

The content was generated in whole or in part by PhysioDock-AI, and
It has been reviewed by a professional for quality assurance.

Example label:
“This text was generated by PhysioDock-AI and reviewed by a licensed physiotherapist.”

4.3 AI as a supplement to professional expertise

AI on PhysioDock.com is a supplement, not a replacement, for human expertise. AI may streamline production, but professional judgement, experience, and knowledge remain paramount. Professionals hold final responsibility for quality, ethics, and accuracy.

4.4 Key points on AI content

AI content is always human-reviewed prior to publication.
Label AI involvement when appropriate.
AI supplements, never replaces, human expertise.
Tools must meet standards for privacy, quality, and ethics.

5.0 SOURCE USE & FACT-CHECKING

5.1 Source selection

PhysioDock.com prioritizes:

Peer-reviewed literature and systematic reviews from reputable databases:
PubMed, Cochrane Library, BMJ, etc.
Guidelines from health authorities, including:
Norwegian Directorate of Health, National Clinical Guidelines, NICE, WHO.
Official statistics from:
Statistics Norway (SSB) and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI).

5.2 Blog posts and experience-based knowledge

Blog posts may include:

Experience-based knowledge from physiotherapists and healthcare professionals.
Personal reflections and practical advice from clinical practice.

When using experience-based content, clearly distinguish it from peer-reviewed scientific content and label it as based on clinical experience (not necessarily on research evidence).

5.3 Fact-checking content

All published content must:

Be fact-checked against selected sources before publication.
Be reviewed by a professional to ensure accuracy and currency.

When citing new or controversial studies, the editorial team must assess methods, sample size, and relevance before inclusion.

5.4 Key points on sources & fact-checking

Prefer peer-reviewed, reputable databases.
Prioritize guidelines and official statistics.
Clearly label experience-based blog content.
Thorough fact-check before publishing.

6.0 REFERENCES & CITATION

6.1 In-text citation requirements

Any claims, facts, or statistics based on research must include a clear and correct in-text citation. No professional assertions should appear without support from reliable, verifiable sources.

6.2 Consistent citation style

Use a consistent, correct reference style across PhysioDock.com:

APA 7th edition (common in health sciences), or
Vancouver style (common in medical/physiotherapy publications).

The editorial team ensures consistent application of the chosen style throughout the text.

6.3 Up-to-date and relevant sources

Sources should be:

Current — ideally published within the last 5 years to reflect the latest research and practice.
Exceptions: Classic, foundational references can be used if still relevant (e.g., seminal theories or historic breakthroughs in physiotherapy).

6.4 Key points on referencing

All research-based claims must have clear citations.
Use APA (7th) or Vancouver consistently.
Prioritize recent sources (≤5 years), with justified exceptions.
Citations enhance transparency, credibility, and professional quality.

7.0 FACT-CHECKING PROCESS

7.1 Pre-publication fact-check

All content on PhysioDock.com must undergo a rigorous pre-publication fact-check to ensure accuracy, reliability, and professional quality.

7.2 Verification of medical claims

All medical claims or professional statements must be verified by:

A licensed physiotherapist or other qualified healthcare professional, who will:
- Ensure claims align with current literature and clinical guidelines.
- Confirm terminology and professional descriptions are accurate and comprehensible for the target audience.

7.3 Review of source use

The editorial team reviews all sources to:

Confirm references come from reliable outlets (peer-reviewed literature, reputable institutions, official statistics).
Ensure citations are correct and follow the chosen style.
Evaluate whether sources are current and relevant.

7.4 External peer review for complex topics

Content that addresses:

Controversial topics (e.g., new research with conflicting findings), or
Complex issues (e.g., rare diagnoses or advanced treatment methods),

should be reviewed by at least one external subject-matter expert prior to publication.

7.5 Key points on the fact-checking process

Everything is fact-checked before publishing.
Medical claims are verified by qualified professionals.
Source use is audited for accuracy and reliability.
External peer review is recommended for complex/controversial topics.

This process ensures PhysioDock.com delivers reliable, professionally sound content to its users.

8.0 Ethical Editorial Standards

8.1 Transparency and credibility

PhysioDock.com commits to full transparency and credibility in all published content to earn and keep users’ trust.

8.2 Author attribution and credentials

Each publication must include:

Author: full name.
Credentials: brief competence profile (e.g., “Physiotherapist, MSc in Musculoskeletal Health,” “Manual Therapist”).
Conflicts of interest: any financial or professional ties that might influence the content, stated explicitly (e.g., “The author received support from [organization] for research on [topic]” / “No conflicts of interest declared”).

8.3 How the content was produced

Disclose the production method:

If AI-assisted: “This text was generated by PhysioDock-AI and reviewed by a licensed physiotherapist.”
Mention interviews, case studies, or experiential basis where relevant.
Provide a short note on how information was gathered and verified.

8.4 Financial collaborations and disclaimer

If sponsorship/collaboration exists: “This article was produced with support from [sponsor], and the content was edited independently of the sponsor.”
If none: “No financial collaborations are associated with this article.”

8.5 Key points

Always list the author, credentials, and any ties; explain how the content was made (including AI, if used); and declare financial relationships clearly.

9.0 Privacy and Consent

9.1 Consent for patient stories, images, and interviews

Written consent is required before publishing:

patient stories,
photos/videos of patients, treatments, or exercises,
interviews (patients/physiotherapists/other HCPs).
The consent form must state the purpose, what will be published (name, image, story), and the right to withdraw consent.

9.2 Anonymisation of personal data

Personal data (e.g., name, age, health information) must be anonymised unless explicitly agreed otherwise in the consent.

9.3 Recording and storage of interviews

Only with prior consent.
Stored securely in line with GDPR and Norwegian law (encrypted, password-protected, access-controlled).
Deleted when no longer needed, unless otherwise agreed.

9.4 Key points

Written consent, anonymisation by default, secure storage, and timely deletion under GDPR.

10.0 Language and Accessibility

10.1 Professional yet plain language

Use professional, credible language that remains understandable to physiotherapists, other health professionals, and the general public.

10.2 Explain technical terms

Define technical terms the first time they appear (e.g., “Palpation (assessment by touch)”).

10.3 Universal design and accessibility

Clear typography, strong contrast, logical structure.
Alt-text for images, charts, and videos.
Semantic headings for easy navigation.
Full compatibility with screen readers and assistive tech.

10.4 Key points

Accessible language, term explanations, and universal design throughout.

11.0 Handling Errors and Corrections

11.1 Corrections

Fix errors immediately upon discovery/report; a staff editor or qualified clinician must review and validate the change.

11.2 Visibility of corrections

Add a correction note at the end of the article with the date and a brief description (e.g., “Corrected description of the Berg Balance Scale …”).

11.3 Material errors

Notify users proactively (newsletter and/or social media) with a link to the updated content when the error could affect understanding or decisions.

11.4 Key points

Fast corrections, transparent notes, and proactive alerts for significant changes.

12.0 Feedback and Complaints

12.1 How to report

Email: support@physiodock.com
Site form: “Report an error or give feedback.”

12.2 Review time

All submissions are assessed within 7 business days (fact-check, source review, and need for change).

12.3 Handling complaints

Processed under our complaints policy to ensure a fair, thorough review. We aim to respond within 14 days. Content may be corrected or removed if it violates these guidelines.

12.4 Key points

Low barrier to contact, predictable timelines, fair process.

13.0 Guidelines for Specific Content

13.1 Health and treatment articles

State the evidence base for medical information and advice.
Include a disclaimer:
“The information in this article is general and does not replace medical advice. Consult a licensed physiotherapist or physician for individual assessment.”
Distinguish clearly between:
- Evidence-based recommendations (guidelines/research), and
- Experience-based tips (clinical practice—note where research is limited).

13.2 Key points

Show sources, include a disclaimer, and separate evidence-based guidance from experiential advice.

14.0 Blog Posts and User Stories

14.1 Label experience-based content

Mark clearly as “Experience-based content” when not supported by research.

14.2 Separate opinion from fact

Personal opinions/reflections must not be presented as scientific facts; wording must make the distinction obvious.

14.3 Anonymise patient stories

Do not include identifying details (name, age, residence, or combinations enabling identification). Generalise context where needed.

14.4 Key points

Clear labelling, explicit opinion/fact separation, strict anonymisation.

15.0 Reviews of Products and Services

15.1 Honesty and authenticity

Base reviews on real tests or user experience; assess objectively for function, quality, and clinical suitability.

15.2 Sponsored reviews

Label at the top: “Sponsored content.”
Disclaimer: “This review was produced in collaboration with [sponsor]; the assessments are based on our own tests/experience.”

15.3 Evaluation criteria (state them in the review)

Durability
Usability
Price / value for money
Clinical effectiveness (observed benefit/utility in practice)

15.4 Key points

Open, verifiable criteria; clear sponsor labelling; objective, clinically relevant assessments.

Contact the editorial team

Editorial: editorial@physiodock.com
Privacy: privacy@physiodock.com

17.0 Sponsorships, Partnerships, and Advertising

17.1 Guidelines for sponsored posts

17.2 Independence from advertisers

Advertisers may not influence topic selection, angles, or conclusions in editorial articles, blog posts, or reviews. PhysioDock.com commits to editorial integrity regardless of commercial partnerships.

17.3 Content created in collaboration with advertisers

Where content is created with an advertiser (e.g., product overviews, articles about specific products/services), the article must clearly state:
“This article was written in collaboration with [advertiser name], and the content has been reviewed and quality-assured by PhysioDock’s editorial team.”

17.4 Key points

Sponsored posts are always labeled “Sponsored content.”
Advertisers have no influence over editorial content.
Co-created pieces include a clear collaboration note.
PhysioDock.com preserves independence and credibility via transparent rules.

18.0 Guidelines for Affiliate Links

18.1 Labeling affiliate links

If an article on PhysioDock.com contains affiliate (commission) links, state prominently at the top:
“This article contains commercial (affiliate) links. If you purchase via these links, PhysioDock may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.”
Explain that such income supports the operation and development of PhysioDock.com.

18.2 Independence in product recommendations

The editorial team recommends products only after independent evaluation:

Objective testing and assessment, and
Comparisons with similar products so recommendations reflect real qualities—not financial incentives.
Advertisers/affiliate partners cannot influence which products are recommended or how they are described.

18.3 Key points

Affiliate links are always disclosed clearly.
Only independently assessed products are recommended.
Commercial incentives do not affect choices or evaluations.
Full transparency governs affiliate use and recommendations.

19.0 Guidelines for Paid Content (Native Advertising)

19.1 Labeling paid content

All paid/native content on PhysioDock.com must:

Be clearly labeled at the top as “Advertisement” or “Commercial partnership.”
Use visible, unambiguous labeling (not small print or buried in-text).

19.2 Separation of paid vs. editorial content

Paid content must:

Not be confusable with PhysioDock’s editorial content.
Use distinct design/structure indicating it is commercial.
Include an explanation such as:
“This article is an advertisement created in collaboration with [partner]. The content was not produced by PhysioDock’s editorial team.”

19.3 Key points

Label native content clearly as Advertisement/Commercial partnership.
Ensure it cannot be confused with editorial content.
Maintain a visible design/label separation to uphold transparency and trust.

20.0 User-Generated Content and Comments

20.1 Comments and forum posts

All comments and forum posts on PhysioDock.com are moderated to ensure a safe, professional, and respectful discussion.

20.2 Content removed by moderation

We remove:

Harassing or discriminatory content (e.g., hate speech; discrimination by gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.).
False health information that could harm users or cause fear.
Spam/unsanctioned advertising (mass postings, irrelevant links, unapproved promotions).

20.3 User behavior and rules

All users must follow the forum rules:

Respect others’ opinions and experiences.
Contribute professionally and factually.
Avoid personal attacks, harassment, or inappropriate language.

20.4 Key points

Moderation protects quality and respect.
Harassment, misinformation, and spam are removed.
Users must follow community guidelines to sustain a professional space.

21.0 User Contributions to Articles and Blog Posts

21.1 Approval before publication

All user-submitted articles or posts must be approved by the editorial team before publication for:

Accuracy and professional quality,
Relevance to PhysioDock’s audience, and
Compliance with platform guidelines.

21.2 Crediting contributors

Contributors are credited clearly with:

Name (full name or preferred byline), and
Professional title (e.g., “Physiotherapist, MSc Manual Therapy,” “Physiotherapy student”).
Optionally, a short bio describing experience and specialty may be added.

21.3 Consent to publish personal experiences

Users sharing personal experiences (e.g., patient stories or professional reflections) must provide written consent, which explains how the content will be used/presented and the right to withdraw consent.

21.4 Key points

Editorial approval is required before publishing user content.
Clear credit with name and professional title.
Written consent for personal experiences.

22.0 Archiving and Updating Content

22.1 Updating older content

The editorial team regularly reviews published content to keep it current, relevant, and accurate—especially medical topics, treatment methods, and guidelines—at least annually. Updates must incorporate new research/guidelines and reflect best practices.

22.2 Displaying the update date

When an article is updated, show a clear update date at the top, e.g.:
“This article was last updated 15 February 2025.”
Optionally include a brief change note, e.g.:
“Updated with new recommendations from the Norwegian Directorate of Health regarding chronic low back pain.”

22.3 Archiving outdated content

Outdated pieces that are no longer relevant or cannot be updated should:

Be archived (removed from main navigation but accessible in an archive if they retain historical/professional value), or
Be removed, with a note that the article has been unpublished.

22.4 Key points

Medical articles are reviewed at least annually.
All updates show a visible date (and optional change summary).
Outdated content is archived/unpublished with clear notice.
PhysioDock.com keeps content accurate and up-to-date.

23.0 Archiving Obsolete Content

23.1 Criteria for archiving

Content may be archived or deleted if it:

Is no longer professionally relevant (e.g., based on outdated research/guidelines),
Covers technologies/methods no longer in use, or
Has been superseded by newer, more accurate content.

23.2 Labeling archived content

Archived items must display prominently at the top:
“This article is archived and is no longer being updated.”

23.3 Archiving process

At least once per year, the editorial team will:

Review content to decide what to update, archive, or delete, and
Document what was archived and why (for internal records).

23.4 Key points

Obsolete content is archived or deleted.
Archived pieces are labeled clearly as no longer updated.
Annual review ensures relevance and currency.
PhysioDock.com provides content that is timely, robust, and reliable.

24.0. HÅNDTERING AV INTERESSEKONFLIKTER

24.1. Opplysning om interessekonflikter

Alle skribenter og redaktører på Fysiobasen.no skal:
- Oppgi eventuelle interessekonflikter før de publiserer innhold.
- Dette inkluderer alle forhold som kan påvirke objektiviteten i innholdet, som:
  - Økonomiske interesser – Inntekt fra, investeringer i eller eierskap i selskaper, produkter eller tjenester omtalt i artiklene.
  - Ansettelse eller samarbeid – Nåværende eller tidligere ansettelse, konsulentarbeid eller samarbeid med selskaper eller organisasjoner som er omtalt i innholdet.

24.2. Merking av interessekonflikter i innholdet

Dersom en skribent eller redaktør har en relevant interessekonflikt, skal dette:
- Opplyses tydelig i artikkelen eller blogginnlegget, for eksempel:
  - «Forfatteren har tidligere vært konsulent for [firma] som leverer produkter omtalt i denne artikkelen.»
  - «Denne artikkelen omtaler et produkt som skribenten har mottatt gratis fra produsenten for testing.»

24.3. Redaksjonell vurdering av interessekonflikter

Redaksjonen skal:
- Vurdere om en oppgitt interessekonflikt er betydelig nok til å påvirke innholdets troverdighet.
- Beslutte om skribenten bør:
  - Avstå fra å skrive om visse temaer.
  - Få innholdet gjennomgått av en uavhengig redaktør.

24.4. Viktige punkter om håndtering av interessekonflikter:

Alle skribenter og redaktører skal oppgi interessekonflikter.
Økonomiske interesser og samarbeid med selskaper må fremgå tydelig i innholdet.
Redaksjonen vurderer interessekonflikter for å sikre at innholdet er objektivt og pålitelig.
Fysiobasen.no forplikter seg til full gjennomsiktighet og integritet i alt publisert innhold.

25.0 Prohibition of Hidden Advertising (Unlabeled Native Advertising)

25.1 Ban on hidden advertising

On PhysioDock.com, it is strictly prohibited to disguise advertising as editorial content.
All advertising—including native advertising (ads that resemble editorial content)—must be clearly labeled so users immediately understand it is commercial content.

25.2 Labeling of commercial partnerships

All commercial collaborations that involve payment, sponsorship, or any other form of compensation must be clearly labeled with:

“Advertisement,” “Sponsored content,” or “Commercial partnership.”

The label must appear at the top of the content and be highly visible.

25.3 Editorial responsibility

The editorial team at PhysioDock.com is responsible for:

Ensuring all commercial posts and partnerships are labeled correctly.
Removing or correcting any content that violates the ban on hidden advertising.

25.4 Key points

Hidden advertising is prohibited.
All commercial collaborations must be clearly labeled.
The editorial team ensures transparency and correct labeling to protect users.

26.0 Changes to the Editorial Guidelines

26.1 Updates and amendments

PhysioDock.com reserves the right to update and amend these editorial guidelines as needed, for example when:

New laws or regulations affect publishing practices,
Technological changes require adjustments, or
Editorial workflows evolve.

26.2 Internal consultation and approval

Substantial changes to the editorial guidelines will only occur:

After an internal consultation within the editorial team, and
With approval from the Editor-in-Chief before implementation.

All editorial staff will be informed and given an opportunity to provide input prior to adoption.

26.3 Visibility of updates

After each update:

The last updated date must appear at the top of this document, e.g.,
“These guidelines were last updated on 16 February 2025.”
Material changes will be communicated to contributors and users via:
- Email notifications to registered users, and
- Information on the website (e.g., a banner message or news section).

26.4 Key points

The editorial guidelines may be updated when needed.
Major changes require internal consultation and approval by the Editor-in-Chief.
The last updated date is always visible at the top.
PhysioDock.com ensures the guidelines remain current, transparent, and accessible to all users and contributors.