Editorial policy
Current for 2026. This policy explains how Nectar selects, writes, reviews and corrects informational content.
1. Purpose
We publish clear, responsible context about performance for adults 35+, not promises or clinical instructions.
2. Independence
Editorial decisions are separate from commercial relationships. Sponsors cannot purchase a favourable conclusion.
3. Sources
Writers consult relevant research, professional guidance and practical expertise, while describing limits and disagreement.
4. Writers
Bylines reflect responsibility for the draft. Contributors disclose relevant professional or commercial interests to the editor.
5. Review
Editors check structure, terminology, safety framing, dated claims and whether a reader could misunderstand general information as personal advice.
6. Corrections
Material errors are corrected with a note when practical. Contact [email protected] with the page and a precise explanation.
7. Updates
Pages are reviewed according to relevance, risk and change in source guidance. A new date does not imply a new conclusion.
8. Images
Images are selected for contextual relevance and are not presented as proof of a claim. Captions and alternative text aim to be specific.
9. Reader contributions
Suggestions may inform future work but are checked independently. Publication is not guaranteed and does not create a paid endorsement.
10. Health language
We avoid diagnosis, guaranteed outcomes, shame and exaggerated urgency. Safety signposting is included where a topic warrants it.
11. Advertising labels
Paid or sponsored material is identified clearly and separated from independent editorial recommendations.
12. History
1 January 2026, initial policy. 1 October 2026, clarified correction, image and sponsorship language.
Our scope includes explainers, interviews, event notes, resource pages and updates to previously published material. Editors consider the reader's likely question, the reliability and date of available sources, the distinction between observation and interpretation, and whether the wording could be mistaken for an individual instruction. Content may be delayed when an important claim cannot be checked with reasonable care.
Sources are recorded in the working brief and, where useful, linked or named for readers. We distinguish peer-reviewed research, professional guidance, first-hand reporting and commentary rather than presenting them as interchangeable. When evidence is limited or contested, the article states that limitation in ordinary language. A source relationship, speaking engagement or commercial interest is disclosed to the editor before publication.
Correction requests should identify the page, passage, factual concern and supporting material. We aim to acknowledge a request within 10 business days and assess a material issue within 30 calendar days. Changes may be marked with a date when the correction affects the meaning of the article; minor typographical corrections may be made without a separate notice.
The policy was first published on 1 January 2026 and is reviewed at least twice yearly, including a scheduled review on 31 December 2026. Editorial correspondence is handled through [email protected] and retained only as needed to evaluate the request, maintain a correction record or meet a legal obligation. This process supports transparency without promising that every suggestion will result in publication.
Our scope includes explainers, interviews, event notes, resource pages and updates to previously published material. Editors consider the reader's question, source date, evidence quality, practical context and whether wording could be mistaken for individual advice. When evidence is limited, mixed or changing, the article should identify that limitation rather than imply a settled conclusion.
Source notes are kept in the working brief and may be linked or named where useful. Research, professional guidance, first-hand reporting and commentary are considered different types of material. Writers and contributors disclose relevant professional or commercial interests before publication, and editors may request clarification or decline a piece if the relationship creates a material conflict.
Correction requests should identify the page, passage, factual concern and supporting material. We aim to acknowledge a request within 10 business days and assess a material issue within 30 calendar days. A meaningful correction may receive a dated note, while a minor spelling change may be made without a separate notice; correspondence is retained only as needed for the review record.
The policy was current for 2026 from 1 January 2026 and is reviewed at least twice yearly, including 31 December 2026. A new review date signals that the page was examined, not that every conclusion changed. Questions and correction requests may be sent to [email protected] or to the Jakarta address listed on the site.