Editorial standards

Two kinds of content

Everything on this site is one of two things, and we keep them clearly separated.

Editorial articles are written by us. They appear in the article grid on the homepage and in the rubric pages, and have their own detail pages with author, date, reading time, and tags. Editorial articles are our voice — explainers, analyses, and primers — written in plain English for readers interested in the topic but not necessarily trained in physics.

Wire items are headlines aggregated from external sources. They appear in the "From the wire" section. Each wire item shows the headline, a short excerpt, the original source name, and a link that opens the original article in a new tab. We do not host or republish the full text of wire items. Credit and traffic stay with the original publisher.

Sources we use

The aggregator pulls from arXiv, the RSS feeds of major science publications (Symmetry Magazine, Quanta Magazine, Phys.org, Science News), the news pages of leading research institutions (IceCube, Fermilab, CERN), and a curated list of industry-related blogs. A full list is on the sources page.

Inclusion of a source in the wire does not imply endorsement. We aim to give a representative cross-section of what is being said about neutrinos by the research community, science journalism, and commercial actors in the space.

How we write editorial articles

Editorial articles follow a few simple principles.

Factual fidelity: We try not to overstate what experiments have shown. When a result is preliminary, we say so. When a measurement is an upper limit, we describe it as such. When physicists disagree, we present the disagreement rather than picking a winner.

Plain language: We avoid unnecessary jargon. When a technical term is unavoidable, we explain it. We assume the reader is curious and intelligent but not a specialist.

Neutrality: We do not advocate for or against specific technologies, companies, or research programs. We report what companies and research teams are developing, attribute non-trivial technical statements to their source, and let readers form their own assessment.

Use of AI tools

We use AI tools (large language models and AI image generation) as part of our research and production process. Drafts may be assisted by AI; final editing, fact-checking, and the decision to publish are made by a human editor. Hero images for editorial articles are generated by Pollinations.ai, a free image-generation service.

We are transparent about this because we believe readers should know how content reaches them. Using AI does not relieve us of editorial responsibility: we stand behind every piece we publish.

Corrections

If you find a factual error, please tell us. We will correct it as soon as possible. Significant corrections are noted at the bottom of the affected article with a date, so the correction history is visible.

Conflicts of interest

We have no commercial relationships with any organization we cover. We do not accept payment for coverage. We do not run advertising or affiliate links. If that ever changes, we will disclose it prominently.

Source hierarchy

When sourcing claims for editorial articles, we work down a clear hierarchy:

1. Collaboration publications — the experiment's own peer-reviewed papers (Phys. Rev. Lett., Science, Nature, JINST, Astrophys. J., etc.), or preprints posted to arXiv and INSPIRE-HEP.
2. Official collaboration websites for technical specifications, construction milestones, and operational status not yet captured in a paper.
3. Review articles by Particle Data Group, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, and similar canonical secondary sources.
4. Reputable science journalism (Quanta, Symmetry, Nature News, CERN Courier, Physics Today, Science News) for context, framing, and quotes.
5. Wikipedia as an entry-point overview and a way to surface additional primary references through its citation lists — never as the sole source for a factual claim.

Fact-checking process

Every editorial article goes through at least one round of fact-checking before publication. The standard checks:

• Specific numbers (cross-section values, statistical significances, baseline distances, detector masses, energy thresholds, detection dates) are verified against the original collaboration paper.
• Historical attributions (who proposed what, when, in which paper) are checked against the original publication, where available.
• Quotes from physicists are verified against the original source. We do not paraphrase a quote as if it were direct.
• Where a result is contested between collaborations or has been re-analysed, both interpretations are presented with their respective statistical weight.

Speculative vs established claims

We mark speculative content explicitly. If a result is at 2σ or 3σ significance and not yet at the field's discovery threshold, we say so. If a model is one of several competing explanations, we list the alternatives. Phrases like "may", "could", "suggests", "hints at" indicate uncertainty intentionally, not as a hedge but as a statement of the evidence's actual strength.

Updating articles after new results

Neutrino physics produces new measurements continuously. Articles whose substantive claims are affected by a new result are updated, with the updatedDate field reflecting the most recent material edit. The visible "Updated" timestamp at the top of each article is the same date. When a result fundamentally changes the picture (rather than just refining a number), a short note at the top of the article describes the change and links to the new evidence.

We aim for a quarterly review pass on the most-trafficked articles, scanning new arXiv preprints in the relevant area and checking whether any cited figure has been superseded.

Bylines and attribution

Editorial articles are attributed either to a named contributor or to the editorial team. Named contributors have profile pages at /authors describing their area of focus and editorial history on the site. The default byline is the editorial team for general coverage; specialist articles use the named-desk attribution (Astrophysics, Theory, Experiments).

Independence and funding

Neutrino-times is a non-commercial editorial project. It receives no funding from research institutions, science publishers, or industry actors covered on the site. Hosting, domain, and engineering costs are borne by the editorial team. There is no paywall and no advertising.

Reader feedback

Reader correction and clarification suggestions are welcomed via the contact page. Substantive corrections are made within one business day. Editorial-judgment disagreements (framing, emphasis, scope) are reviewed but do not necessarily lead to changes.