Why the house byline
Two reasons. First, a small team writes most of the content, and individual bylines would create a misleading impression of either authorship credit or specialist expertise we don't claim. Second, the editorial process matters more than the individual byline — every piece passes a source check, a banned-phrase scan, a link-density check, and a content-length gate before it ships. The byline reflects that process.
When we'll name individual contributors
As the team grows past a small editorial group, we'll move toward named bylines on content where the named author adds meaningful authority — research-page authorship by a cognitive science researcher, for example, or guest essays from named subject-matter experts. For now, the editorial team is the byline and the editorial process is the credibility signal.
The research review process
Every research page, blog post, and answer page passes the same four checks before it ships. (1) Source check: every external claim must link to a verifiable source, preferably primary; secondary coverage is allowed when it adds context but does not substitute for a primary citation. (2) Banned-phrase scan: the published source is grep'd against a list of marketing phrases we will not use — "make you smarter," "boost your brain," "scientifically proven," "prevent cognitive decline," among others. Any match fails the gate. (3) Preprint flag: any preprint citation must be flagged as such in adjacent prose so readers know what they are looking at. The MIT Media Lab cognitive-debt paper, for example, is cited everywhere as a preprint and accompanied by the Stanković critique. (4) Update date: the page metadata includes a published date and an updated date that move when the content changes.
The point of the process is not to perform rigour — it is to make the content survive scrutiny from researchers, journalists, and competitors who would have every reason to find the weak link. Senwitt's position in the market depends on the editorial being defensible. The byline reflects that the process has been run.
Editorial corrections
If you find a citation error, a misread of a source, or a factual issue, email [email protected]. We treat corrections seriously — they get the same updated date and source review as the original piece, and the change is logged.
