Editorial standards
Credibility is a process readers should be able to inspect.
These standards govern how UFOQ.AI selects evidence, uses AI, distinguishes analysis from fact, and corrects the record.
Last reviewed 16 August 2026Source quality and provenance
Material factual claims should be traceable to a named source. Primary evidence is preferred; contextual and specialist sources are used to interpret, corroborate, or challenge it. Anonymous or unverified claims are not presented as established fact.
Facts, inference, and scenarios
We distinguish what was observed from what was calculated or inferred. Scenarios are conditional paths rather than forecasts. Confidence, assumptions, counter-signals, and important evidence gaps are disclosed when they could change how a reader interprets the judgment.
Human accountability for AI-assisted work
AI can support retrieval, graph traversal, comparison, and drafting workflows. It is not credited as an author and does not hold editorial responsibility. A human research professional reviews the evidence, reasoning, citations, and final language before publication.
Independence and commercial transparency
Membership supports the journal. If sponsorship, a commercial relationship, or a potential conflict is material to a briefing, it will be disclosed in the published issue. Payment does not turn promotional material into independent evidence.
Updates and corrections
Briefings carry publication and modification dates. A material factual correction should explain what changed; substantive analytical updates should be distinguished from silent copy edits. Readers can report an issue through the research desk or the corrections page.