NeuroYug
Editorial standards
Begin with the reader’s question
We aim for clear, conversational explanations that connect mechanisms with everyday understanding. We avoid sensational stories, invented patient accounts and claims that one person’s experience establishes a universal rule.
Make the evidence inspectable
Important medical claims need working source links. We prioritise applicable current clinical guidelines, high-quality research and recognised public-health bodies, including Indian sources where relevant. Established guidance, emerging findings, associations and uncertainty should be distinguishable in the writing.
Evidence is checked for the article being written. A reference list alone does not demonstrate that every claim is supported. Publication and source-check dates will help readers understand the context of each article.
Treat emergency information with care
Emergency-focused articles will put immediate action before lengthy explanation. Advice must fit the condition and local context. We will not present a home checklist as a way to rule out a serious illness or turn clinical treatment protocols into blanket medication instructions.
Educational content does not diagnose an individual or replace professional care. Contact and clinical guidance need rechecking when an article is revised.
Emergency-response articles require careful source and editorial checks. We seek independent clinical review and state each article’s actual review status. An author-approved educational release is not clinician approval; Part 1 was released on that basis without external clinician sign-off.
Describe review honestly
We distinguish drafting, source verification, independent editorial review and review by a qualified clinician. An AI-assisted check is not clinician approval. Professional review will only be described when it actually occurs; no blanket medical endorsement is claimed for this publication.
Write about people respectfully
Future neurodiversity coverage will recognise that language preferences and lived experiences differ. We will avoid stereotypes, miracle-cure claims and treating a label as a complete account of a person. Research findings, personal experiences and practical interpretations will be identified for what they are.
Adapt across languages carefully
English is the reference edition. Part 1 is available in Hindi, Odia and Telugu alongside English, with Marathi, Tamil, Bangla and other regional languages planned later with contributors. Adaptation should sound natural while preserving the meaning of clinical distinctions, urgent actions and uncertainty. Any added medical claim needs verification. Language and review status belong to each edition; an automated translation is not medical approval. Links will identify only editions that are actually available.
Correct the substance
When a material error is found, the priority is to correct the claim and its implications. Significant changes to published explanations or recommendations should be documented with an update note and fresh verification.
Languages, contributors and review
Bhargav speaks English, Hindi, Telugu and Odia at a professional level. These are the four initial languages. Language proficiency does not mean that a particular draft has already been reviewed, and it does not imply medical qualifications or independent clinical approval.
Marathi, Tamil, Bangla and other regional-language editions are planned with help from peers and other contributors. Planned languages stay outside the main language menu until real editions are ready and approved. When people contribute, their actual names, roles, review scope and dates will be recorded where appropriate. No contributors or completed reviews are implied merely by announcing a language.
Natural-language review and clinical-meaning review serve different purposes. A published edition should disclose what has actually been checked and by whom.