Policy v1.0

Research Integrity & Editorial Standards

Diplomats.Digital | Policy v1.0

Approved: 23 October 2026

Editorial independence, evidence, AI accountability and disclosure

1. Purpose and status

Diplomats.Digital (DD) publishes independent analysis and applied research on digital diplomacy, foreign-affairs capability, artificial intelligence, institutional governance, sovereignty, resilience and the interaction of technology and international affairs. This policy defines the conditions under which DD develops, verifies, publishes, corrects and discloses its work.

The aim is not a claim of perfect neutrality or exhaustive knowledge. The aim is accountable, source-based judgment: readers should be able to distinguish documented facts, institutional claims, interpretation, uncertainty, and the interests relevant to a publication.

DD is an independently operated, founder-led research and editorial initiative. Independence of editorial decision-making does not imply that all publications have undergone external peer review, that DD is a registered nonprofit, or that it has no commercial activities.

2. Foundational commitments

Accuracy before speed: publish only claims that can be supported at the stated evidence cut-off, qualified when appropriate.

Consistent standards, context-sensitive analysis: apply the same evidentiary, actor-boundary and disclosure rules across states while examining material differences in legal frameworks, conflict, sanctions, institutions and information environments.

No false equivalence: procedural neutrality does not require treating incompatible factual claims or legal findings as equally substantiated. DD distinguishes relevant international decisions and independently documented events from state narratives or contested positions.

Institutional learning, not endorsement: describing a doctrine, tool or capability does not approve its policies, practices or societal consequences.

Human accountability: named authors and editors own the final selection, interpretation and publication of evidence.

3. Editorial independence, commissioning and funding

DD retains final control over research questions, research design, evidence selection, analysis, conclusions, titles, publication timing, corrections and withdrawal decisions.

Public country profiles are selected for comparative research value, geographic and institutional diversity, research questions and reliable evidence availability, rather than prospective sales value. They are not commissioned, paid for or approved by the institutions profiled unless a specific exception is prominently disclosed.

Funding, sponsorship, donated services, commissioned research, relevant grants and material institutional relationships will be disclosed at publication level where they could reasonably bear on perceived independence. No funding source receives an undisclosed right to approve or suppress findings.

Where DD publishes commissioned output, the commission, editorial rights, review arrangements and any material restrictions must be explicitly identified. Such output must not be presented as unsolicited independent research.

4. Research and commercial activity: functional separation

DD may separately offer or develop briefings, workshops, institutional assessments, licensing, advisory work and tools, including DiplomatIQ. The existence of these activities is disclosed rather than concealed.

Public research participation, evidence correction and consultation do not by themselves constitute consent to sales outreach. Research-source contact details, non-public submissions and participant information must not be automatically repurposed for commercial prospecting.

No client or prospective client may purchase a favourable country signal, priority in public coverage, the omission of a material fact, or a change in editorial conclusion. A material present or recent client, advisory, funding, or partnership relationship relevant to a publication requires proportionate article-level disclosure.

DD separates public profile pages from conversion-oriented CTAs: corrections, methodology and further research are the natural next steps. Distinct product pages can explain commercial offerings without implying that public profiles are sales assessments.

Where the same person performs editorial and business roles, separation means documented rules and decisions—not an unsupported claim of organisational or personnel firewalls.

5. Evidence standards and source hierarchy

Claims must use primary evidence where available: legislation, government documents, institutional statements, public system documentation, data, official audit or parliamentary records, and direct records of action. Independent multilateral, academic, investigative and reputable specialist sources are used to test or contextualise contested or consequential claims.

An official source is evidence of what an institution states or formally provides, not independent proof that a programme succeeded, a system performs as claimed, or a capability exists consistently throughout a ministry or mission network.

DD makes explicit the relevant actor (MoFA, mission, government-wide body, private contractor or partner), phase (announced, piloted, deployed, used, tested, improved), date, jurisdiction and evidentiary limitations. Absence of public evidence is not evidence of institutional absence.

Citations should make material claims traceable. Sources with clear dates, stable provenance and accessible records are preferred; archived copies and link-access dates should be retained where feasible. Unsupported quantitative precision and fabricated citations are prohibited.

6. Geopolitical context and contested terminology

For content involving armed conflict, sanctions, territorial disputes, human rights, censorship, significant information manipulation, contested sovereignty or distinct national policy lexicons, authors assess whether a contextual note is necessary to prevent material misinterpretation.

Context notes use consistent triggers across countries, cite authoritative or independently verifiable sources, and distinguish international legal instruments, formal national positions, verified events and disputed claims. They are not partisan endorsements or blanket disclaimers.

Where an official term such as “information security” has a doctrine-specific meaning, DD defines that meaning, distinguishes it from other policy traditions, and states when its normative implications remain contested.

Pictures of officials, logos and state symbols are used for identification and documentation, with appropriate credit and licence, not as endorsement.

7. AI-assisted work and human responsibility

AI may assist with source discovery, research organisation, drafting support, language translation, editorial revision, comparison, methodological challenge and adversarial red-team review. AI-generated statements are not sources of evidence.

Claims, citations, quotations, dates, links and material translations must be verified using accessible underlying sources before publication. The human author/editor decides what to include, how to interpret evidence and whether to publish.

DD will disclose materially relevant AI assistance, especially where it influenced analytical synthesis, translation of significant evidence, or methodology, while avoiding misleading labels that imply unverified automation or independent human review. The precise description must reflect the work actually done.

Unpublished diplomatic, personal, confidential, classified or restricted information must not be entered into external AI services without lawful authority, appropriate safeguards and a justified operational need. AI use does not override copyright, privacy or source obligations.

DD does not claim external peer review, practitioner validation, field testing or an independent editorial board unless such activity occurred and the nature of the review can be described accurately.

8. Publication metadata, attribution and review status

Substantive research pages should show author, publication date, evidence cut-off, version, methodology or framework reference, key sources, limitations and corrections route where applicable.

When useful, publications distinguish authored research, opinion, briefings, source-based explanatory material, invited contributions, sponsored content and commissioned work. Authors disclose relevant roles or relationships.

A concentrated publication schedule is not evidence of defective analysis; however, DD should provide visible provenance and coherent series grouping so readers can inspect the work rather than infer its quality from its volume.

No “peer reviewed,” “independently validated,” “tested” or comparable quality signal may be used without documentation. Internal editorial checking and AI-assisted red-team review must be labelled as such.

9. Right of reply, corrections and version control

Institutions and readers may submit additional sources, factual corrections and contextual clarifications. DD assesses submissions under the same source rules; no source receives an automatic right of approval or veto.

DD distinguishes minor typographical fixes from substantive corrections and methodological revisions. Substantive updates receive a dated change-log entry stating what changed and why; original publication dates and evidence cut-offs remain intelligible.

Materially unsupported allegations or privacy/security risks warrant timely review, appropriate correction, retraction or restriction. A visible correction does not require removing accurately documented criticism.

Editorial contact: contact@diplomats.digital

10. Privacy, safety, rights and external contributions

Publish only personal data necessary for legitimate reporting or research, with appropriate care for diplomatic, vulnerable or security-sensitive subjects. Public availability is not, by itself, sufficient justification for every republication.

Respect source licences and attribution. Identify image creators, licences and modifications where applicable. Avoid publishing actionable security weaknesses, private correspondence or operational details without a clear public-interest basis and proportionality review.

External contributors should be informed of editorial standards, attribution, edits, conflicts and intended publication. Consent, confidentiality, off-record and non-attribution terms must be agreed before use and observed thereafter.

Privacy notices, applicable controller identity, GDPR legal bases, retention, rights and contact details belong in the legally reviewed Privacy Notice; this editorial policy does not substitute for Terms or data-protection compliance.

11. Review, responsibility and governance

The named author is responsible for factual accuracy, fair representation, documentary support and disclosure. The Founder & Editor retains final publication responsibility under the current founder-led model.

For high-risk items, DD should apply a documented heightened review before publication: claim/source cross-check; actor and time-boundary review; contested-terminology review; legal/reputational sensitivity check; AI provenance check; and conflict assessment.

This policy is version-controlled. Amendments affecting substantive safeguards or editorial independence will be dated and summarised. Earlier publications remain attributable to the methodology and policy version in force at publication unless explicitly updated.

12. Public disclosure statement (short form)

Diplomats.Digital is an independently operated, founder-led research and editorial initiative. Public findings are determined by evidence and editorial judgment, not by governments, clients or commercial prospects. DD also develops applied institutional tools and advisory activities, including DiplomatIQ; relevant material relationships are disclosed. AI may assist parts of the research and editorial workflow, but human authors remain responsible for verification, interpretation and publication. See this policy for sourcing, corrections and review standards.

13. Related DD publications and references

Policy owner: Diplomats.Digital — Founder & Editor
Version: 1.0
Approved: 23 October 2026
Scope: Public research and editorial publications