Editorial
Standards
Felova Notebook operates under the following editorial principles: articles are reviewed by at least one second editor before publication, sources are cited where appropriate, corrections are noted publicly, and writers disclose any commercial relationships that could influence their selection of subject matter.
Topic Identification
Topics emerge from reader correspondence, observable patterns in published nutritional research, and recurring questions that arrive through the contact form. The editorial team convenes weekly to assess the relevance and timing of proposed subjects. Topics that appear in multiple reader letters within a short window receive priority consideration.
Writer Assignment
Articles are assigned to writers whose background aligns with the subject. Where a writer has a declared commercial interest in the area — past or present — this is recorded before assignment. If the interest is considered significant, a second writer without that connection is asked to contribute a counterpoint or supplementary perspective.
Source Review
Before submission, writers are asked to document the primary sources informing each material claim. The editorial team reviews citations against the underlying research and flags any reliance on secondary reporting without traceable primary sources. Articles citing peer-reviewed research are held to a higher standard of accurate attribution.
Editorial Review
Every article passes through at least one editor other than the writer before publication. The review assesses factual accuracy, tonal appropriateness, and whether the piece falls within the editorial scope of Felova Notebook. Structural revisions may be requested; substantive factual changes are discussed with the writer before finalisation.
Publication
Articles are published with a visible byline, publication date, and reading time estimate. The category tag used to classify the article is assigned by the editorial team rather than by the writer, to ensure consistency across the archive. Articles published on Felova Notebook are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices.
Post-Publication Review
The archive is reviewed periodically to identify articles whose factual basis has shifted significantly due to new published research. Where an update is warranted, a note is appended at the foot of the article stating the nature of the change and the date it was made. The original text is preserved in visible strikethrough where relevant.
Corrections
Correction requests from readers are taken seriously and reviewed within five working days. A correction is published at the foot of the article when the request identifies a verifiable factual error. Corrections include the date they were made, a brief description of the error, and the amended information. Requests disputing opinion or interpretation are acknowledged but do not result in corrections.
Independence
Felova Notebook is an independent editorial publication. It is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body. No article is commissioned, edited, or withheld in exchange for commercial consideration. Any commercial relationships held by contributors are disclosed at the foot of the relevant article before publication proceeds.
What We Cite
and Why
The evidence-informed approach at Felova Notebook distinguishes between different types of source material. Not all sources carry equal evidential weight, and our writers are asked to reflect that distinction in how they frame claims.
Articles drawing on peer-reviewed research published in established nutritional or public health journals are held to strict attribution standards. Claims derived from this material must link or cite the specific study rather than secondary reporting. Writers are asked to note sample sizes and study design where relevant to the argument being made.
Guidance from recognised nutritional and public health bodies — including NHS Eat Well guidance, EFSA opinion documents, and comparable bodies in other jurisdictions — is considered reliable secondary material. Articles may cite this guidance directly, provided the source body and document are identified.
Some articles are observational in character — the writer's considered notes on patterns they have observed, reported, or encountered through correspondence. This material is signalled clearly in the article's opening paragraph and is not presented as evidence-based in the same sense as Tier 1 or 2 material. Reader letters and anecdotal accounts fall into this category.
Fact Before Narrative
The editorial process begins from the factual record rather than from a desired conclusion. Writers are asked to document the research before constructing their argument, not after. Where the evidence is ambiguous or contested, this ambiguity is represented in the article rather than resolved artificially.
No Undisclosed Influence
Commercial relationships, past editorial roles, and personal connections to the organisations mentioned in an article must be declared before the piece enters the review stage. This declaration is shared with the second editor as part of the briefing. Undisclosed relationships identified after publication result in the addition of a disclosure notice and, where appropriate, reassignment.
Bounded Subject Matter
The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional. Felova Notebook does not commission content designed to substitute for that relationship.
How Articles
Are Categorised
Categories are assigned editorially and reflect the primary angle of the piece. A single article may cover multiple aspects of eating patterns, but is assigned the category that best represents its editorial centre of gravity.
Articles examining recurring behaviours — irregular eating patterns, mindless snacking, weekend indulgence patterns — as observable phenomena rather than personal failings.
Articles covering processed food reliance, ready meal reliance, and the structural conditions — time, cost, access — that shape convenience food patterns in everyday life.
Pieces on hidden sugars in everyday food, liquid calories awareness, portion distortion, and high-salt food habits — primarily evidence-informed and drawing on published research.
Articles exploring gradual dietary improvement, cooking at home benefits, and habit-based approaches to change — typically observational and drawing on reader correspondence alongside research.
Examination of meal skipping consequences, eating speed and fullness, skipping meals and weight, and the relationship between consistent meal timing and overall weekly food rhythm.
Articles on restaurant eating frequency, fast food frequency, and how the setting in which food is consumed shapes the experience and the choices made around it.
Articles published on Felova Notebook are editorial in nature and reflect the writers' observations on everyday wellness practices. The content is not intended as professional advice, nor as guidance for the management of any specific condition. Readers with specific concerns about their daily routines are encouraged to speak with a qualified wellness professional.
Felova Notebook is an independent editorial publication focused on everyday wellness practices. The publication is not affiliated with any commercial, governmental, or institutional body.
Frequently Asked About Our Process
All articles published on Felova Notebook are written by named human contributors. Research summarisation tools may be used in the background stages of the writing process, but the article submitted for editorial review must be the writer's own work. Any use of automated summarisation in the research phase must be declared to the editorial team.
Corrections are reviewed within five working days of receipt. Verified factual errors result in a correction notice appended to the foot of the article, including the date and the nature of the amendment. The correction is visible to all readers; the original text is not deleted but may be struck through in context.
Yes. Every article is reviewed by at least one editor other than the writer prior to publication. For pieces drawing on Tier 1 peer-reviewed research, a second pass is conducted specifically to verify that citations are attributed accurately. Articles are not published without passing through this review stage.
Felova Notebook does not publish sponsored content or paid-for editorial placements. No article is commissioned or withheld in exchange for commercial consideration. If this policy is revised in the future, sponsored material will be labelled explicitly and will be subject to the same factual review as organic editorial content.