Purpose
Reality Herald seeks to publish accurate reporting, careful analysis, serious argument, historical and theological writing, and scholarship presented with intellectual honesty. Editorial judgment should distinguish factual claims from interpretation, argument, opinion, satire, and speculation.
Accuracy and verification
Writers should verify material factual claims before publication and rely on primary sources whenever practical. Quotations should preserve context. Headlines, captions, summaries, and social-media descriptions should meet the same standards of accuracy as article text.
Sources and attribution
Reality Herald should identify sources whenever possible. Anonymous sourcing should remain exceptional and should require a clear reason, editorial review, and corroboration when feasible. Writers should not present rumor, allegation, or inference as established fact.
Fairness and response
When reporting may materially harm the reputation of an identifiable person or organization, Reality Herald should make reasonable efforts to verify the claim and, when appropriate, provide a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication.
Opinion, analysis, and satire
Commentary and argument should receive clear labeling when context may otherwise confuse readers about genre. Satire should never masquerade as straight reporting. Strong conclusions remain welcome, but factual premises supporting those conclusions should remain accurate and fairly represented.
Conflicts of interest
Writers and editors should disclose financial, organizational, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably affect a reader’s assessment of a piece. Reality Herald may decline work when disclosure alone would not adequately address a conflict.
AI-assisted work
Automated tools may assist research, transcription, organization, editing, or technical production, but authors and editors remain responsible for every published claim. AI-generated factual assertions should never bypass ordinary verification.
Editorial review process
Initial screening
New submissions receive an initial editorial screening before full review. The editor considers whether the submission fits Reality Herald’s subject matter and mission, presents an identifiable thesis, argument, report, or analysis, shows sufficient clarity and seriousness to justify further review, provides sourcing appropriate to the type of piece, and avoids obvious plagiarism, fabrication, or gross factual unreliability. A submission that plainly fails this screening may be declined without further review.
Editorial review
Submissions that pass initial screening move to editorial review. The editor evaluates the strength of the central argument, accuracy of significant factual claims, quality and appropriateness of sources, treatment of opposing arguments, originality, relevance to Reality Herald, clarity of writing, necessary disclosures, and any legal or editorial concerns raised by allegations, quotations, copyright use, or claims about identifiable people or organizations.
Editorial decisions
After review, Reality Herald may accept the manuscript, request revision, or decline publication. Acceptance may remain subject to ordinary editing. A revision request should identify concrete issues requiring attention. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Revised manuscripts
A revised manuscript returns to editorial review. The editor ordinarily evaluates the revision against the requested changes rather than beginning the entire review again, unless the author substantially changes the argument, evidence, or scope.
Peer review
Reality Herald as a whole is not peer-reviewed. Ordinary editorial review should not be described as peer review. Only work that completes the publication’s formal peer-review process may carry a Peer Reviewed label. See the Peer Review Policy for the full process.
Corrections
Material factual errors should be corrected promptly and transparently. See the separate Corrections Policy for details.