The Runner’s Journal exists to provide clear, practical and responsible information about running training, nutrition, recovery, female health and equipment.
This policy explains how topics are selected, which sources are used and how articles are reviewed, updated and corrected.
Our editorial principles
We aim for every article to be:
- Useful: It should answer a genuine question or help a runner make a better-informed decision.
- Evidence-led: Important claims should be supported by appropriate research or recognised professional guidance.
- Clear: Technical information should be explained in plain language without changing its meaning.
- Proportionate: The strength of the wording should reflect the strength of the evidence.
- Independent: Commercial interests should not determine editorial conclusions.
- Responsible: General information should not be presented as individual medical, nutritional or coaching advice.
How topics are selected
Topics may be chosen because runners are searching for an answer, because advice online is confusing or contradictory, or because new research deserves a careful explanation.
Search interest can help identify a useful question, but it does not determine the conclusion of an article. We do not alter a conclusion merely to make a headline more dramatic or commercially attractive.
Our evidence standards
Where possible, we prioritise:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Consensus statements and position stands from recognised professional bodies
- Peer-reviewed randomised or controlled trials
- Prospective and observational research
- Official public-health and clinical guidance
- Relevant expert commentary when higher-level evidence is unavailable
Individual studies are interpreted in context. A small study involving elite male athletes, for example, should not automatically be presented as a universal recommendation for all runners.
We aim to distinguish between:
- Evidence that is well established
- Evidence that is promising but incomplete
- Practical suggestions based on limited evidence
- Personal preference or experience
Sources and references
Health, nutrition and performance articles should include a reference section or links to the most relevant sources. We prefer original studies, official guidance and recognised professional organisations over unsourced summaries.
References do not guarantee that a claim is correct. The article should accurately represent what the research found, its limitations and the population studied.
Authors and reviewers
Every article should identify its author and publication or update date.
Selected articles may be reviewed by a suitably qualified professional. A reviewer will only be named when they have genuinely reviewed the content and agreed to be identified. The reviewer’s profile should explain their qualifications and the scope of their review.
Articles that have not received professional review should not imply otherwise.
Health and nutrition content
Running can involve injury, illness and individual health considerations. Nutrition and supplement needs can also be affected by medication, pregnancy, diagnosed conditions, allergies, deficiencies and other personal factors.
Our articles provide general education. They do not diagnose conditions, prescribe treatment or replace individual advice from an appropriately qualified professional.
Read the Medical and Nutrition Disclaimer.
Commercial relationships and affiliate links
Any payment, gifted product, affiliate link, sponsorship or other relevant commercial relationship will be disclosed clearly on the affected page.
Payment or access to a product does not guarantee positive coverage. We aim to separate commercial arrangements from editorial conclusions.
Products and supplements
We do not describe a product as effective merely because its ingredients are theoretically useful. Product discussions should consider the available evidence, dosage, likely relevance to runners, potential drawbacks and whether claims relate to the finished product or only to an individual ingredient.
Supplements are not recommended as substitutes for an adequate diet or appropriate medical assessment. Articles discussing possible deficiencies should not encourage readers to self-diagnose or take high-dose supplements without suitable advice.
Updates
Articles may be reviewed when:
- Important new evidence or guidance becomes available
- A recommendation or product changes
- A reader identifies a possible error
- Links stop working
- The existing article no longer answers the question clearly
The displayed updated date should reflect a meaningful editorial change, not a cosmetic adjustment made solely to make an article appear recent.
Corrections
Material factual errors will be corrected promptly and transparently. Read the Corrections Policy for details.
Use of editorial technology
Digital tools may assist with research organisation, structure or editing. The named editor remains responsible for checking claims, reviewing sources and deciding what is published.
Contact the editorial team
Questions about a source, claim or editorial decision can be submitted through the Contact page.