Home › Editorial Policy
Editorial Policy
How AAMIBlog is written and what we do not publish.
The editorial policy sets out how AAMIBlog chooses topics, checks claims and corrects mistakes. It applies to every post, including contributed pieces.
What guides topic selection
We publish material that answers a question a practitioner actually faces: how to structure a maintenance programme, what a standard requires, how to respond when a device fails or a vulnerability is announced. A topic earns a post when we can explain it without inventing detail.
Verification
- Primary sources first — standards, regulatory guidance, manufacturer instructions for use.
- Named authorship — every post carries an author with relevant practice background.
- No composite cases — if an incident is described, it is either documented publicly or clearly presented as an illustrative scenario.
- No invented figures — numbers appear only with a stated origin.
Independence
| Situation | How it is handled |
|---|---|
| Author works for a device manufacturer | Disclosed in the byline; the post may not promote that manufacturer's products |
| Topic concerns a vendor under contract | The piece focuses on process, not on the vendor's advantage |
| Sponsored content | Not published in the editorial stream |
Review before publication
Each draft is checked for: a clear reader benefit, at least one verifiable anchor (a standard, a regulation, a published document), accurate terminology, and the absence of promotional framing. A draft that cannot point to an anchor is returned to the author rather than published as opinion.
Corrections
Errors are corrected in the text. Where a correction changes the meaning, a note states what was wrong and what replaced it. Readers can report an error through the contact page; the process is described in terms of use.
Review cycle
Explainers are revisited when the underlying standard or regulation changes. Practice notes are revisited when a contributor reports that a workflow has moved on.