Editorial Policy

Last updated: April 23, 2026

The Elm Reader exists to give older American adults clear, honest, well-sourced information on topics that matter — health, legal basics, everyday life, and good news. This page explains how we approach that work and what standards we hold ourselves to.

1. Human Editorial Responsibility

Every article published on The Elm Reader is the responsibility of a human editor. We decide what topics to cover, what sources to consult, what claims to include, and how to present information clearly to our readers. No piece goes live without a human reviewing it against its stated sources and confirming it is accurate, fair, and consistent with our disclaimer standards.

We take that responsibility seriously. The people who use this site — many of them in their 60s, 70s, and 80s, navigating health systems, legal documents, and an information landscape that rarely makes it easy — deserve that effort.

2. How We Research and Write

Our process for each article typically includes:

• Identifying a topic that is relevant, timely, and genuinely useful to our readers.
• Consulting primary sources — government agencies (CDC, CMS, HHS), professional organizations (AMA, ABA, AHA), academic research, and news organizations with strong editorial standards.
• Drafting and editing for accuracy, clarity, and plain-English readability. We use editorial tools throughout this process, including AI-assisted drafting as a starting point. Every draft is reviewed, revised, and fact-checked by a human before publication.
• Adding source links and citations so readers can verify claims directly.

3. A Note on AI-Assisted Drafting

We use AI writing tools as part of our editorial workflow — primarily to help with research synthesis and first drafts. We are transparent about that because we think you deserve to know.

What we want to be equally clear about: AI assistance does not reduce our editorial responsibility — it increases the need for human review. AI tools can generate plausible-sounding text that is wrong, outdated, or missing important nuance. Every article on this site is reviewed by a human specifically to catch those failures. The editorial judgment, the selection of sources, the final decisions about what to publish and how to present it — those are ours.

On health and legal articles in particular, we hold ourselves to a higher standard of review, because the stakes of a mistake are higher.

4. Health and Legal Content Standards

As we state plainly in our disclaimer and our about page: we are not doctors, and we are not lawyers. Nothing here is advice. It is information, explained as clearly and accurately as we can manage. We believe that distinction matters, and we write accordingly.

5. Corrections

If we get something wrong, we want to fix it. If you find an error — a factual mistake, an outdated statistic, a broken link to a source — please contact us at contact@theelmreader.com. We read those emails and take them seriously.

Significant corrections to published articles are noted within the article itself.

6. Advertising Independence

The Elm Reader displays advertising. Advertising decisions are entirely separate from editorial decisions. Advertisers do not influence what we cover, how we cover it, or what conclusions we reach. See our advertising disclosure for full details.

7. Our Standard, Simply Put

We are a small operation. We do not have the staff of a major news organization. What we do have is a clear sense of who we're writing for and why it matters — and a commitment to not publishing something we don't believe is accurate and useful. If we're uncertain about something, we say so or we don't publish it.

That's the standard. We think it's the right one.