Editorial policy
Clear answers need a clear standard.
Get Regular's publishing standard for sources, AI assistance, medical review, corrections and honest product descriptions.
Clear sourcing, honest authorship and visible corrections help readers judge an explanation. This is the standard we use for the Learn library and product information.
Help readers understand and record
Our educational content should answer a specific question in ordinary language. It should distinguish an observation from a possible explanation, and general information from advice that depends on a person's history. An article must not diagnose a reader or use uncertainty to push an app download.
Get Regular publishes this library and has a commercial interest in its app. Product mentions should be relevant to the task, factual and easy to distinguish from the educational explanation. We do not describe a feature, health outcome or customer result as proven without evidence for that exact statement.
Use sources that support the actual claim
Prefer primary research, clinical guidelines and established public health organizations for health statements. Link the sources used so a reader can inspect them. A reference about a stool scale cannot support a claim about an app's AI accuracy; the scope of the source must match the scope of the sentence.
Product facts require their own evidence. Public listing descriptions can be labeled as listing evidence. A tutorial that promises particular controls or outputs requires a current product check. Historical release notes should not silently become proof of today's installed behavior.
Disclose AI assistance and real human review
AI may assist with research organization, outlines and drafts. Human editors remain responsible for checking the wording, source fit and product claims before publication. AI assistance is not medical expertise, and a polished draft is not a reviewed health article.
We name a medical reviewer and review date only when an appropriately qualified person reviewed the actual text. An article without that credit is general educational content, not individually reviewed medical advice. Clinical advisory involvement does not give every page a medical approval or byline.
Keep examples and research in their proper role
Worked diary examples must say when they are fictional. An illustrative week is a teaching aid, not a Get Regular customer result, a promise about how quickly a pattern will appear or proof that a food caused a symptom. Product screenshots and sample exports must come from an approved, privacy-safe source and represent the feature being described.
Search questions, community accounts and app reviews can show which explanations readers need. They do not establish how common a symptom is or what outcome a reader should expect. Reviews of other apps are research material, not Get Regular testimonials. A comparison must distinguish public-source research from a current hands-on test and disclose our commercial interest.
Keep approvals and corrections honest
Check substantial changes against their sources and keep a record of corrections. Review dates describe real work, rather than an automatic timestamp change. If a health, privacy or product claim cannot be supported, remove or qualify that claim instead of filling the gap with an assumption.
Send factual corrections or accessibility problems to hello@getregular.com, including the page and the statement in question. We assess the issue, correct supported errors and seek further review when needed. Please do not include private medical records in a website correction request.