Editorial Standards
How TUBUO Writes handles evidence, uncertainty and corrections.
The basic rule is simple: make clear what is known, what is reported, what is analysis, and what remains uncertain.
Accuracy before speed
Material facts should be checked against the strongest available sources before they are presented as established.
Uncertainty stays visible
Disputed, incomplete or provisional information should not be made to sound more certain than it is.
Dignity matters
Public interest does not require unnecessary exposure, especially where children, survivors or vulnerable people are involved.
Sources, facts and interpretation
Preference is given to original records, court material, official documents, direct statements, established news organizations, reputable civil-society organizations, academic research and recognized international institutions.
Several reports repeating the same underlying statement are not automatically independent confirmation. Social-media material may be useful as a lead, but not as proof simply because it has been widely shared.
Reported fact, analysis, commentary and allegation are not treated as the same thing. Language such as “according to,” “reported,” “alleged,” and “the available evidence shows” is used deliberately where evidentiary status matters.
Privacy, images and attribution
Names, precise locations, photographs, medical details and other identifying information may be withheld where publication could increase harm. Graphic images are avoided where they add harm without clear public-interest value.
Images should not create a misleading impression, and illustrative visuals should not be presented as documentary evidence. Quotations, data, research and distinctive ideas should be attributed to their sources.
Data, digital tools and transparency
Numbers should be presented with their unit, period, source and relevant limitations. A case register is not automatically a prevalence estimate, and figures from different populations or counting systems should not be combined unless the methodology supports it.
Digital and automated tools may assist with research organization, editing, formatting, transcription or technical production. They do not replace editorial responsibility, and software output is not treated as evidence in itself.
Material conflicts of interest or sponsored relationships should be disclosed where relevant to how a reader interprets the work.
Corrections and reader challenges
Material errors should be corrected transparently. Typographical changes may be fixed without a formal note, while changes affecting meaning, chronology, legal status, classification or published data should be disclosed where appropriate.
Good-faith factual challenges are welcome. Serious claims may warrant a meaningful right of response when available and relevant.
View Corrections & Updates → · Submit evidence or a correction →
The Africa GBV Observatory uses additional rules.
Case-linked monitoring requires a more formal methodology for counting, evidence labels, privacy, date handling and corrections.
For quotation, translation and republication rules, see Citation, Reuse & Permissions →
