Editorial Policy

Effective 1 January 2026 and reviewed 1 September 2026, this policy describes how Xyjecta develops trustworthy editorial work. It applies to every article, guide, glossary entry, and event listing published on the site, regardless of whether the piece was written by a staff contributor or an invited guest writer. The policy exists because our core subject matter, athleticism, endurance, strength, mobility, nutrition, and recovery for readers aged 35 and beyond, intersects with health in ways that demand particular editorial care. We expect every contributor to read and work within this policy before a byline appears on the site, and we revisit the policy itself whenever our editorial practices meaningfully change. New contributors are asked to confirm in writing that they have read this policy before their first piece is assigned, and the editorial desk, rather than any commercial team, retains final responsibility for enforcing it across every published page.

1. Independence

Editorial decisions are separate from commercial conversations and are based on reader value. This means that a decision to cover, or not cover, a particular topic, such as a specific recovery technique, is made by the editorial desk based on relevance to our readership rather than on any commercial relationship Xyjecta may have. Where advertising or sponsorship appears on the site, as described in our advertising policy, the team responsible for that commercial relationship does not direct editorial content or assign articles. We consider independence essential to the credibility of an information resource covering topics that affect a reader's training and wellbeing decisions. This separation is reflected organisationally as well as procedurally, in that the person responsible for commercial relationships does not have authority to approve, reject, or amend an independent article prior to publication.

2. Accuracy

Writers verify names, dates, quotations, and meaningful claims before publication. A meaningful claim, such as a statement about a specific training adaptation or a nutritional figure, is checked against an identifiable source before it appears in a published article. Where a quotation is attributed to a named contributor or external expert, the quotation is confirmed with that individual, or clearly marked as a paraphrase, before publication rather than presented as a verbatim statement without confirmation. We treat an accuracy failure as a priority correction under Section 6 rather than a matter to be addressed only if a reader happens to notice it. Where a claim cannot be verified against an identifiable source within a reasonable timeframe, the claim is either removed from the draft or rewritten to reflect its actual evidentiary status, such as describing it explicitly as a common practice rather than an established finding.

3. Sources

We identify public sources and explain when an observation is personal experience rather than research. Where an article draws on a specific study, guideline, or public dataset, we aim to name it clearly enough that an interested reader can locate it independently rather than taking our summary on faith. Where a piece instead reflects a contributor's personal training experience or professional observation, we aim to say so explicitly rather than implying a broader evidentiary basis than actually exists. This distinction matters particularly for a readership making real decisions about training load and recovery based on what they read. We also avoid citing a source secondhand through another publication's summary where the original material is reasonably accessible, preferring to check the primary source directly before referencing it in our own coverage.

4. Health Claims

We avoid cure language, guarantees, fear, and unsupported transformation claims. This means an article does not describe a practice as curing, preventing, or guaranteeing resolution of a medical condition, and does not promise a specific measurable outcome such as a particular strength gain within a fixed timeframe. We also avoid fear-based framing designed to alarm a reader into a decision, preferring instead a calm, contextualised explanation of why a topic matters. Any health-related content on the site is additionally governed by our medical disclaimer, which this editorial policy works alongside rather than duplicates. A draft article containing language that approaches these boundaries is returned to the writer for revision before publication rather than published with a disclaimer appended as an afterthought, since we consider careful initial framing preferable to a corrective note added later.

5. Conflicts

Contributors disclose relevant professional, financial, or personal relationships to the editor. This includes, for example, a contributor who works professionally as a coach or consultant in a field related to an article they are writing, or who has a financial relationship with a brand mentioned in a piece. Disclosure is made to the editor before an article is assigned or accepted, and where a conflict is significant enough to affect the article's framing, it is noted transparently within the published piece itself. A contributor who declines to disclose a known relevant relationship is not assigned further work for the site. Where a disclosed relationship is minor and does not reasonably affect the article's content, such as a contributor having once attended an unrelated event hosted by a mentioned organisation, the editor may determine that a published note is unnecessary, but the disclosure itself is still recorded internally for future reference.

6. Corrections

Material errors are corrected with a dated note rather than silently replaced. A material error includes an incorrect factual claim, a misattributed quotation, or a figure that was wrong at the time of publication, as distinct from a minor stylistic tidy-up that does not affect meaning. When a material correction is made, the article carries a visible note indicating the date of the correction and a brief description of what changed, consistent with standard editorial practice at established publications. Readers can report a suspected error through the process described in our disclaimer, and we log the date each report is received. We aim to begin reviewing a credible correction report within a few business days of receipt, and where the review confirms an error, the correction is applied as soon as practicable rather than queued for a future unrelated update to the same article.

7. Privacy

We do not publish private details without a public-interest reason and appropriate consent. This applies both to readers who contact us, whose correspondence is handled under our privacy policy rather than quoted publicly without permission, and to any individual mentioned within an article, such as a case example drawn from a contributor's professional experience. Where a real example is used to illustrate a point, identifying details are generally altered or omitted unless the individual has specifically agreed to be named. This principle reflects both respect for reader trust and the practical reality that our subject matter frequently touches on personal health circumstances. Where a contributor wishes to use a genuinely identifiable case study, written consent from the individual concerned is obtained and kept on file before publication, separate from the general correspondence records described in our privacy policy.

8. Advertising

Paid placements are labelled and do not determine independent reporting. Any advertising or sponsored content appearing on the site is marked with a visible label such as "Advertisement" or "Sponsored," consistent with the approach described in our advertising policy. The presence of a commercial relationship with a company does not entitle that company to favourable coverage in our independent articles, and our editorial desk retains final say over article content regardless of any advertising relationship elsewhere on the site. We consider this separation a core part of maintaining reader trust in an information resource that also carries commercial messages. Where a company that advertises on the site is also mentioned factually within an independent article, that mention is reviewed under the same accuracy and sourcing standards described in Sections 2 and 3, with no different treatment arising from the advertising relationship.

9. Reader Contact

Corrections and concerns can be sent to our Jakarta address or +62 21 6853 0927. A reader raising an editorial concern, such as a disagreement with how a topic was framed, is encouraged to be specific about the article and the passage in question so the editorial desk can consider the point properly. We distinguish between a factual correction, handled under Section 6, and a broader editorial disagreement about emphasis or framing, which we also welcome but which does not necessarily result in a change to the published text. We aim to respond to a reader's editorial concern within the general timeframe described for complaints in our privacy policy. Where a reader's concern leads us to conclude that our original framing could reasonably be improved even without a factual error, we may still choose to revise the piece and note the revision date, since reader feedback of this kind is one of the ways our editorial judgement improves over time.

10. Change Log

Published 1 January 2026; reviewed 1 September 2026. Future revisions will show their dates. The 1 September 2026 review confirmed that the independence, sourcing, and correction practices described above remained consistent with how the editorial desk actually operates across the full range of content now published on the site. We expect the next scheduled review to take place around the first quarter of 2027, aligned with the review cadence used across our other policy pages, and sooner if we introduce a new content category or a new category of contributor relationship not already addressed above. Any future revision that changes a substantive practice, rather than simply reaffirming an existing one, will be noted with its own dated entry at the top of this page. Between scheduled reviews, we also keep an internal record of any individual correction applied under Section 6, so that a pattern of repeated errors in a particular topic area, should one emerge, would be visible to the editorial desk well before the next formal review date.