Environment Editorial Policy

This policy explains the editorial standards used for CAB Direct materials in the Environment section of Environment & Climate. It applies to coverage of climate change, biodiversity, conservation, pollution, ecosystem resilience, sustainable land use, water resources, sustainability and environmental policy. The aim is to make the origin of claims clear, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and present environmental research without extending conclusions beyond what the cited sources support.

How Environment articles are prepared

Environment articles are prepared by authors working with environment and climate topics. During drafting, the author defines the main subject and information question, uses relevant and verifiable sources, and separates established facts from interpretation, projection or policy positions. Numerical data, dates, measurements and scientific terminology must be represented accurately, and the article must not overstate a source or make claims that go beyond the available evidence.

1. Define the central environmental topic and the information question the article is intended to answer.
2. Use sources that are relevant to the claim and whose origin can be checked.
3. Separate established findings from interpretation, projections and policy positions.
4. Check numerical data, dates, measurements and scientific terminology against the source material.
5. Avoid stronger conclusions than the cited evidence supports.

Sources and evidence

For scientific claims, priority is given to primary scientific literature, peer-reviewed research, official institutional publications, recognised scientific organisations, government bodies and other sources with a clearly identifiable origin. Source choice should match the type of claim being made: a research finding should be traced to research evidence, while a law, regulation, official target or public-policy position should be traced to the responsible institution or government source. The project-wide evidence framework is available at /how-we-rate-evidence/.

Interpreting environmental and climate evidence

Environmental evidence often combines observed measurements, model outputs, scenarios, projections and policy analysis. Articles should identify which kind of evidence is being described rather than presenting all of these categories as equivalent. Where a source reports uncertainty, ranges, assumptions or limitations that materially affect interpretation, those features should be preserved in the article. This is especially important for climate projections, biodiversity trends, ecosystem responses and assessments of environmental interventions.

Editorial roles and team

The Environment team includes authors, reviewers and editors with stated environment and climate coverage. The Environment team for this section is listed below. Additional profile information is available through the author directory at /authors/.

Review and publication checks

Environment editorial requirements focus on traceable sourcing, accurate handling of data and terminology, clear separation of fact from interpretation, and claims that remain within the limits of the evidence. Reviewers and editors are identified within the Environment team, but this policy does not state an unverified fixed sequence of review stages or claim that every article receives the same specialist review. The general editorial policy is available at /editorial-policy/.

Updates, corrections and reader feedback

Environment coverage should remain tied to verifiable evidence when material is revised. No fixed review interval is specified for Environment articles in this policy. Readers who identify a possible error or want to raise an editorial question can contact the editorial team through /contacts/. Information specifically related to corrections is available at /corrections/.

Conflicts of interest

This Environment policy does not define a separate conflict-of-interest disclosure, recusal or publication procedure. Because no Environment-specific process is established here, one should not be inferred. Project-wide conflict-of-interest requirements should be described as mandatory only when they are documented in the relevant editorial policy.

Related CAB Direct pages

For broader project information, see /about/. For the general editorial policy, see /editorial-policy/. Evidence-rating guidance is at /how-we-rate-evidence/, and editorial questions can be sent through /contacts/.