Editorial

Editorial standards

The standards we hold ourselves to. These are the rules we follow when writing, reviewing, and updating an entry.

Sourcing hierarchy

When sources disagree, we prefer them in this order. Lower-tier sources do not displace higher-tier sources.

TierSource typeExamples
1Primary peer-reviewed literatureJournal of Medical Entomology, Toxicon, Journal of Arachnology
2Government public-health agenciesCDC NIOSH, NIH, U.S. Geological Survey
3University extension publicationsUC IPM, UF IFAS, Penn State Extension, Texas A&M AgriLife
4Museum taxonomic referencesAMNH, Smithsonian NMNH, World Spider Catalog
5Authoritative tertiary sourcesEncyclopedia of Life, ITIS

Review process

  1. Draft. Every entry is written against at least two tier-1 to tier-3 sources.
  2. Fact check. Each numeric claim (measurement, LD₅₀, year, state range) is linked to a specific source. Unsourced numbers are removed.
  3. Range claim review. Any geographic claim is checked against the most recent county-level specimen review available.
  4. Clinical review. Bite-symptom and first-aid content is reviewed against current poison-control and CDC guidance.
  5. Publish with timestamp. The "last reviewed" date is set on publish.

Update cadence

  • Medically significant species: reviewed at least annually.
  • Invasive / range-expanding species: reviewed at least twice per year while expansion is active.
  • Stable reference content: reviewed at least every 24 months.
  • Any source-replacement or factual correction: logged publicly within 7 days.

Corrections policy

We log every factual correction at /corrections-and-updates with the date, the affected page, what changed, and the source that prompted the change. We do not silently revise text.

What we don't claim

  • We are not a substitute for clinical care. Any suspected envenomation warrants medical evaluation.
  • We do not provide species-level identification of submitted photographs.
  • We do not certify pest-control practitioners.