These guidelines govern everything published by ISU News. They exist so that readers can judge our work against a stated standard rather than an assumed one, and so that everyone writing or editing for us understands what is expected. They are reviewed periodically and updated as practice evolves.
1. Accuracy above speed
We are not a breaking-news wire. Being first is not an objective we pursue, and we will delay publication rather than publish a claim we cannot yet stand behind. Where a story is developing and important details are unknown, we say what is known, say what is not, and avoid filling the gap with inference presented as fact.
Every factual assertion in an article must be traceable to a source that the writer has personally examined. Reporting a figure because another outlet reported it is not verification. Where we cannot reach the primary source, we attribute explicitly to the secondary one and note the limitation.
2. Sourcing and linking
Our default is transparency. Articles link directly to statutes, court decisions, regulatory filings, official statistics, peer-reviewed research, and institutional publications so that readers can verify claims independently. We prefer primary sources to summaries, official data to press releases, and peer-reviewed literature to preprints, noting the distinction where a preprint is used.
We are cautious with single-study findings, particularly in health and nutrition, where individual results frequently fail to replicate. Where we describe research, we indicate study size, design, and whether the finding is preliminary or well established.
3. Anonymous sources
Named sources are always preferred. Anonymity is granted only where the information is of clear public importance, cannot be obtained otherwise, and the source faces a genuine risk of retaliation or legal jeopardy. An editor must know the source’s identity and approve the arrangement.
We do not grant anonymity to allow a source to make personal attacks or to advance an interest without accountability. Where anonymity is used, we describe the source’s position as specifically as safety permits and explain why the name is withheld.
4. Fairness and the right of reply
Where an article makes a substantive criticism of an identifiable person, company, or institution, we seek their response before publication and allow a reasonable period to reply. If they decline or do not respond, we say so. If they respond after publication with substantive new information, we update the article and note the update.
We represent opposing arguments in the form their strongest advocates would recognise. We do not use a weak version of an argument to make its rejection easier, and we do not manufacture balance between a well-supported position and a fringe one; where the evidence is lopsided, we say so plainly while describing the dissent accurately.
5. Separation of fact and opinion
Explanatory articles describe how something works and what the evidence shows. Where our writers offer judgement or interpretation, the article is labelled as analysis and the reasoning is made explicit so that readers can disagree with the argument rather than the framing. We do not smuggle conclusions into reporting through selective emphasis or loaded language.
6. Headlines, images and framing
A headline must be supported by the article beneath it. We do not write headlines that overstate a finding, imply certainty the piece does not claim, or withhold the substance to compel a click. Images and captions must accurately represent what they depict; where an image is an illustration rather than documentary photography, it is captioned as such.
7. Conflicts of interest
Writers and editors disclose to us any financial holding, employment history, family relationship, or affiliation that a reasonable reader might consider relevant to a subject they are covering. Where a conflict is material, the assignment goes to someone else. Where a relationship exists at the publication level, it is disclosed within the article.
We do not accept gifts, paid travel, or hospitality from organisations we cover. Commercial arrangements never influence what we publish or how we publish it.
8. Artificial intelligence
We use software tools, including AI-assisted tools, for research assistance, transcription, data processing, copy editing, and the production of illustrative imagery. We do not publish text generated by an automated system as journalism without human authorship, editing, and verification. A human editor is accountable for every published word.
Facts, figures, quotations, and citations are never accepted from a generative tool without independent confirmation against a primary source, because such tools are known to produce plausible and incorrect output. Where imagery is generated or substantially altered by software, it is presented as illustration rather than documentary photography.
9. Privacy and vulnerable subjects
We weigh public interest against intrusion. Private individuals who find themselves in the news are afforded greater protection than public officials acting in their official capacity. We take particular care with children, victims of crime, people in medical crisis, and those who may not understand the consequences of speaking to a journalist.
When covering suicide, self-harm, or violence, we follow established reporting guidance: we avoid describing method or location in detail, avoid sensational language, and include support information where relevant.
10. Corrections
We correct errors promptly, visibly, and without defensiveness. We do not silently delete or amend published claims. The full procedure, including how significant corrections are labelled, is set out in our corrections policy.
11. Plagiarism and attribution
Presenting another person’s work or words as one’s own is a firing matter. Where we build on reporting first published elsewhere, we credit the originating outlet by name and link to it. Quotations are reproduced accurately; where a quote is condensed, the omission is marked and the meaning preserved.
12. Accountability
These standards are only meaningful if readers can hold us to them. If you believe we have fallen short of anything set out on this page, please tell us through our contact page. We investigate every such message and respond.