Editorial policy

Curiosity works best when readers can check the explanation for themselves. These principles guide articles published by FactLomia.

Sources before sensational claims

We prioritise primary scientific, institutional and historical references where available. Articles provide links for further reading. Linking a source does not imply that the source endorses FactLomia.

Original writing and useful detail

We write explanations for a specific reader question rather than reproducing source paragraphs. Tables, comparisons and calculations are included where they clarify the answer. We do not publish multiple near-identical pages for keyword variations or add text solely to reach a word count.

Originality checks and their limits

Our October 2026 revision includes internal text-overlap checks and web searches for selected distinctive sentences. These are limited screening checks, not a comprehensive plagiarism certificate. They cannot establish that no similar wording exists anywhere. Scientific terms and established facts are shared knowledge; source attribution remains necessary.

Clear limits

We distinguish established facts from hypotheses and unsolved questions. A surprising statement should include the definition or context needed to understand it, such as the distinction between a solar day and a rotation period on Venus.

AI assistance

The initial articles and site were created with AI assistance. They have not received independent expert review. We do not invent reviewer credentials, testimonials or claims of scientific certification.

Images and corrections

Photographs may illustrate a topic without depicting the specific event described. Material corrections should be reflected in the text and modification date. As the publication develops, we plan to add a dedicated reader contact channel.