# Editorial Principles This page explains how an article gets onto this site: who writes it, what counts as evidence, what is checked before publication, how corrections work, and how the site is paid for. It exists so that a reader — or a reviewer — can judge the content on method rather than on trust. ## 1. What this site covers, and what it does not DoTheyGoBad explains **why food spoils and how shelf life is determined**, from an industrial food-science perspective: formulation, water activity, pH, microbiology, lipid oxidation, packaging, thermal processing and storage. We deliberately do not publish: - home storage tips and "how long is it good for" guesswork; - medical, dietary or nutritional advice; - regulatory determinations for a specific product or market; - verdicts on whether a particular item of food is safe. Those boundaries are restated in the [Disclaimer](legal/disclaimer.md). Content here is explanatory and non-prescriptive. ## 2. Who writes it The site is written by **Martin Wang**, a food industry professional with 20+ years in industrial food processing and product development. His background is on the [author page](about/author-profile.md). One author, named, with a contact address, is a deliberate choice: it means every claim has someone accountable for it. ## 3. What counts as evidence Sources are used in this order of authority: 1. **Primary scientific literature** — peer-reviewed papers, review articles, and reference texts on food microbiology, food chemistry and process engineering. Linked with a DOI where one exists. 2. **Official standards and authority guidance** — Codex Alimentarius, ISO methods, and the published guidance of bodies such as the FDA, EFSA and national food safety agencies. 3. **Established industry practice** — process and formulation norms that are documented in technical literature or widely standardised across manufacturing. 4. **Professional experience** — used to explain *why* a mechanism matters in practice, and always flagged as judgement rather than as measured fact. Where sources disagree, the article says so rather than picking the more convenient number. ## 4. What is never done - **No invented data.** No fabricated measurements, laboratory results, client cases, certifications or test reports. If a figure has not been published or measured, it does not appear as a number. - **No borrowed results presented as ours.** When a value comes from someone else's study, the article attributes it and says whose product and conditions it describes. - **No invented citations.** Every reference is checked to exist and to say what the article claims it says. A citation that cannot be verified is removed, not softened. - **No false precision.** A mechanism explained qualitatively is not dressed up with a number that implies measurement. - **No fear-based framing.** Spoilage is described as a process, not a threat. ## 5. How articles are produced Each article follows the same sequence: 1. **Scope** — define the question and the product categories it applies to. 2. **Research** — gather primary sources and standards; note where evidence is thin. 3. **Draft** — write the mechanism first, then the practical consequences, then the limits. 4. **Claim check** — every quantitative claim and every reference is traced back to its source; claims that cannot be traced are cut or explicitly marked as judgement. 5. **Scope check** — confirm the article does not cross into safety verdicts or regulatory determinations. 6. **Publish** — with a date, an author, and links to sources. ## 6. Use of AI tools AI tools are used, and it is better to say how than to leave it ambiguous. **Used for:** - locating published research and background material; - summarising long papers so they can be assessed faster; - drafting and editing prose; - checking internal consistency — units, repeated claims, broken links. **Not used for:** - deciding what the site publishes; - generating measurements, study results or citations; - publishing without review — no page goes live unreviewed; - producing a page whose claims the author cannot defend in conversation. Every published page reflects the author's judgement. Where the evidence does not support a firm conclusion, the article says so rather than filling the gap with plausible-sounding prose. ## 7. Review and updating Food science and regulation move. Articles are revisited when: - a standard or regulation they reference is revised; - newer literature changes the picture; - a reader reports an error or an unclear passage; - the page has gone a long time without review and the field has moved. Substantive revisions are reflected in the "last updated" information on the page. Minor copy-editing is not. ## 8. Corrections If something here is wrong, we want to fix it. Email **martin@dinweys.com** with the page URL, the claim, and — if you have one — the source that contradicts it. We aim to respond within 7 days and to correct or annotate the page once the point is confirmed. Substantive corrections are noted on the page rather than made silently, so a reader who cited the earlier version can see what changed. ## 9. Independence and funding The site is free to read and funded by **advertising served through Google AdSense**. - Advertisers have no input into what is published. No advertiser sees an article before publication, and none can request a change. - Advertising is selected automatically and placed by Google; an ad appearing beside an article is not an endorsement. - If sponsored content or affiliate links are ever introduced, they will be labelled on the page itself, at the point where the reader encounters them. - There are no paid product rankings, no paid reviews and no "featured" placements sold to suppliers. ## 10. Contact Editorial questions, corrections, or a request to reuse content: **martin@dinweys.com** See also: [About](about/index.md) · [Author](about/author-profile.md) · [Disclaimer](legal/disclaimer.md) · [Terms of Use](legal/terms-of-use.md)