SBM editorial policy

Science-Based Medicine (SBM) is dedicated to evaluating medical treatments and products of interest to the public in a scientific light, and promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in health care. Information about alternative medicine published online in social media, websites, and blogs, as well as in mainstream news and commentary outlets is depressingly credulous and uncritical, and even some medical schools and academic medical centers have bought into the hype and failed to ask the hard questions. Worse, ever since the rise of the “make America healthy again” (MAHA) movement, this credulousness towards incorrect, misleading, and often outright dangerous health claims now extends to those holding the highest offices in the federal government, who now try to turn, for example, antivax misinformation that was considered fringe just a few years ago into federal government policy.

SBM is intended as an antidote to this credulity, a source for critical evaluation of medical claims based on scientific evidence and principles, hence “science-based medicine.” We also can no longer entirely separate our commentary on the scientific basis of medicine from politics, and we do not shy from discussing when politics intrudes on or impacts science-based medicine, public health, and medical research. To support this commentary, we insist upon rigorous accuracy with respect to science and medicine.

Currently, we have a two-track process for article publication. The first track includes guest posts submitted by outside experts, which undergo a peer review process described here. The second is for longtime SBM editors, who have through a demonstrated track record for accuracy been granted the privilege of being allowed to publish directly without editorial preapproval. This includes Editors, Associate Editors, and anyone listed in our Roll Call of Honor (past editors). However, posts by editors are still subject to post-publication review by their fellow editors. Moreover, post-publication review can also be triggered when enough of our readers express concerns about an inaccuracy or inaccuracies in a given post. The result of such review can range from concluding that no action is necessary because the post is scientifically and factually accurate, to suggesting revisions to the author, to (on rare occasions) a full retraction with a published notice explaining why the post was retracted. In all cases, factual errors will be transparently corrected.

Last editorial policy update: April 20, 2026.