Last updated: November 12, 2026
These standards guide the research, scientific checking, and maintenance of 1Lecture’s educational materials. They apply to lesson text, diagrams, examples, quizzes, and interactive models across cell biology, biochemistry, genetics, physiology, microbiology, and immunology.
They define the checks expected during development. Any statement that a particular page has received specialist review must reflect work actually completed.
1. Define the Learning Question
Research begins with a specific learning objective, the intended reader, and the knowledge needed beforehand. A lesson should identify whether it explains an established concept, compares mechanisms, interprets evidence, or introduces a developing area.
The scope should be manageable. When a topic requires substantial background, we should explain that background or connect readers to an appropriate prerequisite. Titles, examples, and activities must match the stated objective.
2. Select Sources Appropriate to the Claim
Established textbooks and authoritative educational references are suitable starting points for foundational concepts. Review articles can help explain the wider evidence, while original research is appropriate for specific findings, contested details, or recent developments.
Source selection should consider:
- Relevant expertise and identifiable authorship.
- Publication context and editorial oversight.
- Methods, evidence, and limitations.
- Applicability to the species, system, or conditions discussed.
- Corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction notices.
Peer review is a useful consideration, rather than a guarantee of accuracy. Preprints must be identified as such when discussed. Retracted work must not be used as reliable support for a scientific claim; any discussion of it should explain its status.
We should consult the relevant source directly rather than rely solely on a search snippet, press release, abstract, or another website’s summary.
3. Match Evidence to the Explanation
Important claims should have traceable support. Research notes should identify the source and the relevant section, figure, table, or finding so another editor can follow the reasoning.
For research findings, checks should address study design, appropriate comparisons, biological context, and the authors’ stated limitations. Sample size, measurement uncertainty, and consistency with other evidence should be considered where they affect interpretation.
An observation should not be presented as proof of a proposed mechanism without sufficient support. Association must be distinguished from causation, and findings from a particular model system should not be generalized beyond the evidence.
When sources disagree, we should examine differences in definitions, conditions, methods, or assumptions. Unresolved disagreement should be described honestly rather than hidden behind a single confident statement.
4. Check Mechanisms, Terminology, and Models
Scientific checking should examine the explanation as a whole, including:
- The order of events and the direction of movement or information flow.
- The structures, molecules, and compartments involved.
- Inputs, outputs, and conditions.
- Definitions, abbreviations, and distinctions between similar terms.
- Important exceptions and the limits of general statements.
Simplification should preserve the relationships necessary for understanding. Analogies must be identified as analogies, and any limitation likely to mislead a learner should be explained.
For example, a pathway summary should state whether its outputs are counted per reaction, per cycle, or per starting molecule.
5. Verify Numbers, Diagrams, and Activities
Calculations should state formulas, units, assumptions, and rounding conventions. Worked examples should be recalculated, and reported precision should be appropriate to the underlying values.
Diagrams must agree with the accompanying text. Review should cover labels, arrows, legends, locations, and any implied scale or timing. Schematic illustrations should make relevant simplifications apparent. Scientific meaning should remain understandable through captions or text alternatives.
Quiz questions must have defensible answers under the conditions stated. Explanations should address why an answer is appropriate and clarify plausible misconceptions. Ambiguous questions should be revised.
Interactive models should be checked against independently calculated examples or reliable reference cases, including relevant boundary conditions and invalid inputs. Their assumptions and limitations should be visible to users.
6. Describe Review Accurately
Editorial review, scientific checking, and independent specialist review are different activities. Review labels should describe the work performed and identify contributors accurately.
A reviewer should have knowledge suited to the content being assessed. Advanced, disputed, or consequential material may require additional expertise. If suitable checking cannot be completed, the scope should be reduced or publication postponed.
Internal review notes should record the version assessed, sources checked, reviewer or editor involved, issues raised, and how substantive concerns were resolved. Where one person performs several roles, the process must not be described as independent review.
7. Use AI with Verification
AI may assist with organization, drafting, language, or production, but it cannot establish the validity of a scientific claim.
References must exist and support the associated statements. Generated explanations, diagrams, calculations, and answer keys require human checking. AI output must not be cited as scientific evidence or presented as a substitute for specialist review.
8. Maintain and Correct Materials
New evidence, source corrections, reader reports, or identified inconsistencies can trigger reassessment. The response may include revising a claim, replacing a visual, updating an activity, or temporarily restricting affected material.
Substantive corrections should explain what changed when that information helps readers understand the error. Review dates should represent genuine assessment of the relevant content.
Readers can help by identifying the page, statement or visual concerned, and supporting evidence. Reports should be evaluated on their scientific substance.
Background References
The following resources provide relevant guidance on evaluating research rigor and checking scientific references. This page establishes 1Lecture’s own educational publishing standards.