Editorial Guidelines

The Critical Loop is not affiliated with, or editorially aligned to, any political party, ideological movement, campaign group, corporation or religious organisation.

Contributing authors may examine political ideas, policies, institutions and movements critically, but articles should not function as party-political campaigning or propaganda.

Non-partisanship does not mean treating every position as equally credible. Where evidence strongly supports one conclusion over another, articles should be able to say so.

Balance means representing relevant evidence and serious counterarguments fairly, not manufacturing false equivalence.

Claims should be supported by credible evidence where evidence is available.
Authors should distinguish clearly between:

* established facts;
* interpretation and analysis;
* informed speculation;
* informed judgement;
* personal opinion.

Rather than selectively presenting only material that supports a predetermined conclusion, our contributing authors are expected to engage honestly with evidence that might complicate or challenge their argument. For example, if an article critiques a technology policy by highlighting its weaknesses, the author should also address empirical studies or expert opinions that demonstrate the policy's benefits or effectiveness, even if these complicate their primary thesis.

Sources should be appropriate to the seriousness of the claim being made. Academic research, official statistics, primary documents, reputable journalism and recognised subject-matter expertise should be preferred where relevant.

Articles should demonstrate an attempt to understand the strongest reasonable arguments and relevant perspectives surrounding an issue.

This does not require every article to be neutral or without a point of view. Authors may reach strong conclusions, provided those conclusions follow from the evidence and reasoning presented.

People, organisations and ideas should be represented accurately. Criticism should address what someone has actually said, done or argued rather than a caricature of their position.

The Critical Loop aims to make complex ideas easier to understand without oversimplifying them.

Contributing authors should use clear, precise language and avoid unnecessary jargon, unexplained acronyms and needlessly obscure phrasing. Where specialist terminology is necessary, it should be explained in context rather than assumed, or linked to relevant web content.

Readable writing does not mean reducing complexity, avoiding difficult subjects or talking down to readers. The Critical Loop aims to reach an engaged, well-informed audience that may not necessarily have specialist knowledge of every subject we cover.

While this publication aims to remove unnecessary barriers to understanding, it also focuses on preserving nuance, intellectual depth and accuracy.

The Critical Loop welcomes robust criticism of ideas, decisions, policies, organisations and public conduct. However, civility and respect must be kept at all times.

Personal attacks, insults, ridicule directed at individuals, harassment and commentary whose primary purpose is humiliation are not acceptable.

We do not publish rumours, speculation about people's private lives, unverified allegations, personality-driven feuds or material whose principal value is voyeurism.

Information about an individual's behaviour or personal circumstances should only be included where it has a legitimate and demonstrable connection to a matter of public, professional or intellectual significance.

Where criticism concerns an identifiable person, it should be relevant to the subject of the article and supported by evidence. The distinction is simple: criticise the argument, conduct or decision, but not the person's inherent worth.

The Critical Loop values independent thought, factual accuracy, critical enquiry and the freedom to question established assumptions.

We do not publish material whose primary purpose is proselytising, promoting unsupported claims as established fact, or discouraging critical examination. No idea or belief system is exempt from reasoned criticism, and disagreement with an idea should not be confused with hostility towards the people who hold it.

Articles should represent the author's own intellectual contribution. Ideas, quotations, research, statistics and substantive arguments derived from the work of others should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced.

Plagiarism, unattributed copying, and the presentation of another person's work as one's own are unacceptable.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that permissions, attribution and copyright requirements are respected.

The Critical Loop recognises that AI tools are increasingly part of contemporary research and writing workflows.

Contributors may use AI for activities such as:
* brainstorming and exploring ideas;
* developing or organising an initial draft;
* revising structure;
* editing;
* improving clarity or grammar;
* assisting with research discovery.

AI should assist the author's work rather than substitute for it. We do not publish material that is simply generated by AI and presented as an author's original intellectual contribution. The final article should reflect the author's own reasoning, judgement, analysis and voice.

Authors remain responsible for everything published under their names, irrespective of the tools used to produce it.

Factual claims, quotations, citations and references produced or suggested by AI must be independently checked against reliable original sources.

The Critical Loop approach is based on authorship, transparency, and accountability rather than on policing which tools writers use.

The Critical Loop does not use AI-generated images or video as editorial illustrations or visual content.

Synthetic media risks blurring the distinction between representation and reality, reproducing biases embedded in generative systems and contributing to the environmental footprint of generative AI.

The Critical Loop uses only original media, including photography, sound recordings, video, commissioned illustrations, appropriately licensed imagery, archival material, diagrams, charts, and other human-created or documentary visual and auditory material.

An exception may be made where an AI-generated image or video is itself the subject of reporting, research or critical analysis. In those circumstances, the material should be clearly identified as AI-generated and reproduced only where editorially necessary.

Corrections should not be treated as an embarrassment. A willingness to correct the record is part of serious publishing.

Contributing authors are expected to make reasonable efforts to verify factual claims before publication.

Significant errors discovered after publication should be corrected promptly and transparently.

Contributors should disclose financial, professional, organisational or other relationships that could reasonably be considered relevant to the subject of an article.

Having expertise, professional experience or a point of view does not itself constitute a conflict. Undisclosed interests that could materially influence the reader's interpretation of the article do.

Publication in The Critical Loop is not determined solely by whether an article complies technically with these guidelines.

Editors may reject or request changes to material that is poorly evidenced, derivative, misleading, unnecessarily inflammatory, promotional, intellectually weak or inconsistent with the publication's purpose.

The Critical Loop values intellectual independence over conformity. Contributors are not expected to agree with one another or with the editor, but they are expected to act respectfully and make arguments that can withstand scrutiny.