Our Review Process

BioExplorer has been an independent biology reference since 1999. In that time our content has been cited in peer-reviewed journals on PubMed Central, referenced by Oxford University Press in Annals of Botany, used as a source by The Washington Post, and cited in academic books published by Springer Nature, Taylor and Francis, and Oxford University Press.

That credibility is the direct result of a consistent, documented review process applied to every article we publish. This page describes that process from start to finish.

Step 1: Topic Selection and Brief

Every new article begins with a clearly defined editorial brief. The brief specifies:

  • The subject to be covered and the depth of coverage required
  • The primary audience (student, educator, general science reader)
  • The key questions the article must answer
  • The primary source categories the writer should consult
  • Minimum accuracy and citation requirements

Topics are selected based on reader demand, gaps in existing coverage, new scientific developments, and strategic content planning. We do not publish articles simply to generate volume.

Step 2: Primary Source Research

Before writing begins, the assigned writer conducts structured primary source research. This means consulting peer-reviewed scientific literature, authoritative institutional databases, and established reference sources — not secondary aggregators or general websites.

For animal biology articles this typically includes IUCN Red List assessments, Animal Diversity Web species profiles, and zoological journal literature. For plant biology, Kew Gardens databases, botanical journal literature, and institutional herbarium records. For cell biology and genetics, PubMed-indexed research papers. For conservation topics, WWF reports, IUCN Commission assessments, and peer-reviewed conservation biology journals.

Writers document their sources before drafting. This source documentation is reviewed alongside the draft.

Step 3: Writing

BioExplorer articles are written by credentialed biology professionals. All writers hold verifiable academic credentials in a biology or life science discipline — doctoral, master’s, or bachelor’s degrees from accredited universities. Writer credentials are published on individual author profile pages.

Writers are required to:

  • Support every significant factual claim with a traceable primary source
  • Define technical terminology at first use
  • Write in plain English accessible to an educated non-specialist reader
  • Maintain scientific accuracy without oversimplification
  • Disclose uncertainty where the science is genuinely contested

Step 4: Editorial Review

Every submitted draft is reviewed by our editorial team before publication. The editorial review covers:

Factual accuracy: Key claims are spot-checked against the cited primary sources. Claims that are not clearly supported are flagged and returned to the writer.

Source quality: We verify that cited sources are authoritative, current, and actually support the claims they are cited for. Weak or inappropriate sources are replaced.

Scientific currency: We check whether the content reflects current scientific consensus or whether recent publications have updated the relevant field.

Clarity and accessibility: We review whether the article communicates accurately to its intended audience without sacrificing precision.

Structure and completeness: We confirm the article addresses the questions set out in the editorial brief and is logically organized.

Articles that do not pass editorial review are returned to the writer with specific revision requirements. They are not published until revisions are completed and re-reviewed.

Step 5: Publication

Once an article passes editorial review, it is prepared for publication with:

  • Author byline and linked author profile
  • Publication date and category assignment
  • Internal links to related BioExplorer content
  • Source citations and external links to primary references
  • Featured image with appropriate alt text

Step 6: Post-Publication Review

BioExplorer articles are not static after publication. Our editorial team conducts periodic reviews of existing content to identify:

  • Information superseded by new scientific research
  • IUCN conservation status changes
  • Taxonomic reclassifications
  • New discoveries that expand or update published content
  • Reader-reported errors

When updates are required, articles are revised and their last-updated timestamp reflects the genuine revision date.

Our Team

The review process described here is carried out by the BioExplorer editorial team and our credentialed science writers. Full team profiles and credentials are available on our About page.

See also: our Editorial Standards, Fact-Checking Policy, and Corrections Policy.

Last reviewed: May 2026