MindJrnl writes about mental wellness, so how we get to what we publish matters as much as what we publish. This page describes exactly what we do — research from citable sources, cite them in the piece, check the piece against them, date it, and correct it when we are wrong — and, just as importantly, what we do not do.
Everything MindJrnl publishes is educational. It is not medical advice, it is not therapy, and it is not a substitute for a qualified professional who knows you and your history.
Journalling is a useful practice with real research behind it. It is not a treatment for a mental health condition, and nothing you read here should be used to diagnose yourself, to decide whether to start or stop a medication, or to replace care you are already receiving. If something in your life warrants a professional opinion, please get one — a doctor, a therapist, or another qualified clinician can do something for you that an article cannot.
If you are in crisis, or thinking about harming yourself, please stop reading and contact your local emergency number or a crisis line in your country now. Health services and crisis lines differ by country, so we deliberately do not print numbers here that might be wrong where you are — search for the crisis line in your own country, or go to your nearest emergency department. Please do not wait.
MindJrnl exists to make mental wellness accessible and understandable. Misinformation about mental health causes real harm, which is why we would rather publish less and be able to show our working than publish quickly and hope nobody checks.
We think the honest version of that promise is more useful than a grand one. We are a small team building a journalling product. We are not a clinic and we do not employ clinicians. What we can offer is care in how we read the research, plain language when we explain it, visible sources so you can check us, and a fast correction when we get something wrong.
We are committed to editorial independence. What we recommend is never influenced by advertisers, sponsors, or commercial partnerships. When we suggest a practice or technique, it is because the evidence supports it — not because someone paid us to say so.
Health and wellness claims in MindJrnl content are grounded in published evidence, and the evidence is cited in the article rather than gestured at. These are the standards we hold that research to:
Everything on the MindJrnl blog is written by the team that builds MindJrnl, and published under one shared byline. There is no roster of outside contributors and no guest posting, which means there is exactly one group of people accountable for what appears here.
We are not clinicians. Nobody on the team is a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist or physician, and no article on this site has been reviewed or approved by one. We would rather you knew that up front and judged the work on its sources than took our word for anything on the strength of a title.
Research and writing
MindJrnl articles are researched and written by the small team that builds MindJrnl. We are not clinicians, and we do not claim to be. What we publish is built from published, citable research, checked against those sources before it goes live, and linked so you can read the evidence yourself and disagree with us.
Every article starts from published, citable sources — peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines from recognised bodies. We work from the source itself, not from a summary of it or from another article about it.
We draft in plain language, and the sources behind each claim are cited in the article where the claim is made. If a point rests on a single small study, we say so in the sentence rather than burying it in a footnote.
Before publication every factual claim is read back against the source it came from, and every citation and link is opened and confirmed. Anything we cannot trace to a source is cut, or clearly marked as our own experience rather than evidence.
Articles are published with a publication date and a last-reviewed date, so you can see how current a piece is before you decide what to do with it.
We come back to published articles when the evidence moves — a new systematic review, a changed guideline, a finding that fails to replicate. When we change something material, the revision date changes with it.
Review here means checking an article against its sources, not clinical sign-off. Every piece of health-related content goes through the following before it reaches a reader.
Each claim is matched back to the specific source it came from. If a sentence has drifted from what the study actually found — a correlation written up as a cause, an effect in one population generalised to everyone — it is rewritten or removed.
A second person on the team reads the piece for clarity, tone, and framing. On mental-health topics that includes checking that nothing reads as a promise of a clinical outcome, and that anyone who might be in difficulty is pointed toward real help rather than a journalling prompt.
Statistics, study citations, quotations and every outbound link are verified before the article goes live. A citation that cannot be opened and confirmed does not ship.
Published articles carry a last-reviewed date and are revisited on a regular cycle, and sooner when new evidence lands or a reader tells us something looks wrong.
No licensed clinician reviews or approves MindJrnl articles, and we do not claim any article is clinically endorsed. If you see a wellness site badge anywhere promising that a doctor signed something off, it is worth asking that site who, and whether you can check. For us the answer is simply that nobody did — what we can show you instead is every source we used.
Accuracy is our highest priority, but we are human and we will get things wrong. When we do, we correct it promptly and we say that we did.
If you believe any of our content contains an error — a misread study, a broken citation, a claim that goes further than the evidence — tell us. Point us at the article and, if you can, the source you think we got wrong. We take every report seriously and typically respond within two business days.
Our editorial content is independent from our business operations. No advertiser, partner, or commercial relationship influences what we write, recommend, or publish.
MindJrnl does not accept sponsored content, paid placements, or affiliate commissions that could compromise the objectivity of what we say about wellness. When we mention a product, service, or practice, it is because we think it has merit — not because we have a financial relationship with whoever provides it.
Our revenue comes from our subscription plans, which is the whole reason we can keep our editorial priorities pointed at readers rather than at advertisers. It also means that when we write about journalling, we are writing about the thing we sell — so we try to be careful to describe what the evidence supports rather than what would sell a subscription, and to link the research so you can tell the difference.