Psychology is too useful (and too easy to oversimplify) to publish carelessly.
PsychTomato is an independent psychology publication. Our goal is to make psychology clear, engaging, and useful without sanding away the uncertainty, context, and occasional messiness of the science.
This page explains the standard we use for new and substantially updated articles, how artificial intelligence may fit into our workflow, and how we are improving work published under an earlier process.
Who is responsible for what you read?
Topics, editorial angles, conclusions, and publication decisions are made by people, not software.
Jeffrey Wright directs PsychTomato’s editorial work and is responsible for the material published under his byline. If an article includes a guest contributor, expert review, or interview, we identify that person and their role when we have permission to do so.
A byline is a statement of accountability. We do not describe an article as expert-reviewed, medically reviewed, or peer-reviewed unless that review actually occurred and the reviewer is identified.
Our current editorial standard
The following standard applies to new articles and to older articles once they receive a substantial editorial refresh.
Start with a useful question
Every article should help the reader understand something specific. We choose topics because they illuminate a psychological idea, examine a popular claim, explain a piece of research, or make an established concept easier to use, not simply because a keyword is available.
That applies to any commercial content we publish, too. For example, a book article should explore the book’s ideas, context, strengths, and limitations. It should still be worthwhile to someone who never buys the book.
Follow the evidence
We prefer original research, systematic reviews, academic books, established textbooks, government or university resources, and publications from reputable professional organizations.
The best source ultimately depends on the claim. A recent empirical claim may require a peer-reviewed study, while a historical or biographical detail may be better supported by an archive, scholarly biography, or institutional record.
For new and substantially revised articles, we make the support visible through links, source notes, or a reference list. Statistics, quotations, contested claims, health-related statements, and descriptions of specific studies receive particular attention.
That said, note that a source being published does not make it unquestionable. We consider its relevance, methods, limitations, date, and the broader evidence around it. When the evidence is mixed, preliminary, disputed, or difficult to apply outside the laboratory, we try to say so plainly.
Separate evidence from interpretation
PsychTomato often uses stories, analogies, everyday situations, and pop-culture characters to make psychology memorable. These are teaching tools, not diagnoses.
When we apply a psychological framework to a fictional character or cultural moment, the analysis is an interpretation. We distinguish that kind of analysis from claims directly established by research.
We also avoid diagnosing real people from a distance.
Review before publishing
Before a new or substantially updated article is published, we review it for:
- factual accuracy and support;
- whether sources actually say what the article claims;
- clear separation between evidence, interpretation, and opinion;
- overstatement, sensationalism, and misleading certainty;
- readability, context, and respectful language; and
- working links and appropriate disclosures.
PsychTomato is an educational publication, not an academic journal, and our articles are in no way a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, therapy, or individualized advice. Please see our Disclaimers and Crisis Support pages when those boundaries matter.
How we use AI
AI is a tool in our workflow, but it is not an author, an expert, or a source.
Depending on the project, generative AI tools may sometimes assist with brainstorming questions, organizing notes, comparing possible outlines, SEO planning, occasional line-level rewrites, metadata, formatting, or technical work. Humans conduct the research, write the substantive content, exercise editorial judgment, and make every publication decision.
That assistance does not remove human responsibility. Before publication:
- relevant factual claims must be checked against credible sources;
- a citation suggested by an AI tool must be opened, read, and verified… the suggestion itself is not evidence;
- AI-assisted language must be reviewed and revised for accuracy, context, voice, and usefulness;
- the final editorial judgment belongs to the named human author or editor; and
- private reader correspondence and sensitive personal information are not used as casual prompts in public AI tools.
AI systems can produce confident errors, fabricated references, flattened nuance, and generic prose. Those risks are why we do not use an AI answer as authority and why an AI system is never listed as the author of a PsychTomato article.
If we publish an image or other media that has been materially generated or altered by AI and that fact would reasonably matter to the reader, we will label it near the material when practical.
This policy is intended to describe our process honestly. It is not a claim that responsible publishing requires pretending AI tools do not exist, nor is it permission to publish their output without scrutiny.
Affiliate links, books, and commercial relationships
Some PsychTomato pages may contain affiliate links. If a reader makes a qualifying purchase through one of those links, PsychTomato may receive a commission at no additional cost to the reader.
Affiliate availability or commission rates do not determine our conclusions. We choose whether to cover a book or resource based on its relevance to the topic and our readers. We do not promise favorable coverage in exchange for payment, free products, access, or an affiliate relationship.
Any sponsored material will be clearly labeled. Sponsorship can support the work, but it cannot buy an undisclosed endorsement or prevent us from discussing meaningful limitations.
Corrections and updates
Psychology changes, links break, and we can make mistakes.
If you notice an error, an unsupported claim, a broken source, or wording that deserves another look, email us and include the article URL and the passage in question.
We correct confirmed factual errors as promptly as practical. When a correction materially changes an article’s meaning or conclusion, we add a correction or update note rather than quietly changing the record. Minor changes such as spelling, formatting, and link repair may be made without a separate note.
We are also adding clearer visible publication and update information across the site. During that rollout, the absence of a visible “updated” date should not be read as proof that a page has never been edited.
Our legacy archive and current refresh
PsychTomato’s early archive was produced under a less consistent citation and update process than the one described above.
An August 2026 audit found that much of the early archive did not consistently display external source links. That does not establish that every claim in those articles is wrong. It does mean readers cannot easily examine the support behind much of the archive, and we consider that a meaningful shortcoming.
We are reviewing the archive in stages. That work includes:
- checking central factual and research claims;
- adding visible, credible sources where needed;
- qualifying or removing claims that are not adequately supported;
- improving authorship and update information;
- repairing links, metadata, and formatting;
- clarifying the intent of articles that overlap too closely; and
- substantially revising or retiring pages that no longer earn their place.
Until an older article has been refreshed, it should not be assumed to meet every part of our current standard. We will not solve that gap by retroactively claiming a level of review that did not occur.
The goal is a better archive, not merely a newer date.
Questions about this policy?
If you have a question about a source, a correction, a potential conflict, or how an article was made, email us.
Last updated: August 8, 2026