Our Editorial Standards
Clear sources, proportionate conclusions and transparent editorial responsibility.
Original sources
We prioritise original peer-reviewed studies. We check the original publication, its DOI, population or model, methods and stated limitations. Preprints are identified as such; a preprint and its published version are not counted as independent evidence.
Evidence in context
We distinguish human clinical observations from cell and animal experiments. A mechanistic effect or a result in another gene is not presented as a demonstrated KDM6B treatment. Findings are described with their relevant variant, model and uncertainty.
Authorship and review
KDM6B Research Alliance publishes these articles. Their preparation includes AI-assisted drafting and source comparison; this is not independent expert peer review. We name an external scientific reviewer only when a review has actually taken place, its scope is documented and the reviewer has agreed to be named. The review status is not inferred from an affiliation or informal contact.
Updates and corrections
Publication and substantive update dates are shown on each article. We revisit content when relevant evidence changes; the date is not renewed simply for a layout adjustment. Material corrections should identify what changed and why, while preserving the source trail. Please report a possible error to hello@k6b.eu with the article link and supporting source.
Scope
These are focused educational articles, not exhaustive systematic reviews or individual medical advice. References allow readers to examine the underlying evidence and its limits.