Editorial & corrections policy

Effective 3 August 2026

This policy describes how OrthoAnimate selects, reviews, updates, corrects, and protects the independence of its educational content.

Editorial responsibility

OrthoAnimate LLC owns and operates the platform. Its founder currently serves as clinical editor and is accountable for reviewing each module before public release and adjudicating reported clinical-content errors.

Scope and intended audience

Content is designed for orthopaedic learners and educators. Modules explain concepts through simplified interactive models and are not patient-specific clinical guidance. Every module must identify its educational scope, relevant assumptions, and important limitations.

Evidence and citation standards

• Material clinical, anatomic, biomechanical, and classification claims should be supported by linked literature or an identified authoritative source.
• Citations should be sufficiently specific for a learner or reviewer to locate the source.
• When sources disagree, the module should avoid presenting a contested position as universal fact.
• Technique-, implant-, population-, or coordinate-system dependence should be stated when it affects interpretation.
• A citation list supports the model but does not make a module a systematic review unless a systematic method is explicitly described.

Clinical review before release

Before publication, the clinical editor reviews the learning objectives, terminology, anatomic relationships, model behaviour, feedback messages, references, assumptions, and disclaimer language. Technical testing is performed in proportion to the module's complexity. A public beta or preview label means that further clinical, usability, accessibility, or technical refinement is expected.

Updates and review triggers

OrthoAnimate does not promise a fixed calendar review interval. Review is triggered by a material change to a module, a credible error report, important new evidence, a relevant change in accepted terminology or classification, an accessibility finding, or a software change that could alter behaviour. Modules that have not been recently reviewed should not imply otherwise.

Reporting and correcting errors

1. Report. A learner, educator, contributor, or other reviewer submits the feedback form or emails contact@orthoanimate.com. Reports should identify the module, location, expected behaviour, observed issue, and supporting source when relevant.
2. Triage. The report is classified as a potential clinical-content error, software defect, accessibility barrier, data/licensing issue, or clarity suggestion. Potentially harmful or materially misleading content receives priority.
3. Verify. The clinical editor reviews the cited evidence and reproduces model behaviour where possible. An outside subject-matter reviewer may be consulted when the issue falls beyond the editor's expertise or is reasonably disputed.
4. Adjudicate. The editor determines whether to correct, clarify, add a limitation, seek further review, or leave the content unchanged with a documented rationale.
5. Correct and test. Accepted corrections are implemented and tested. Affected content may be temporarily removed or marked with a notice when immediate correction is not possible.
6. Document. Material corrections are recorded in the project changelog or the affected module. Reporters who provide contact information may be notified of the outcome.

Contributors and attribution

Substantive contributors should be credited according to their role, such as clinical review, writing, software development, illustration, data preparation, or usability review. Contributors must have permission to submit their work and sources. Inclusion is based on the value and integrity of the contribution, not on payment, status, or affiliation.

Conflicts of interest

Contributors and reviewers must disclose financial and non-financial relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence a module, including employment, consulting, royalties, equity, research support, device or software relationships, and advocacy roles. Relevant disclosures should appear in or alongside the affected module. A disclosed conflict does not automatically exclude participation, but it may require independent review or limits on editorial control.

Sponsorship and editorial independence

Sponsorship, if accepted in the future, must be clearly identified. Sponsors may support development or distribution but may not select conclusions, suppress limitations or corrections, require favourable treatment of a product, or receive undisclosed influence over content. Advertising or sponsored material, if ever introduced, will be visually distinguishable from editorial content.

Use of automated tools

Software and automated tools may assist with drafting, code, testing, or illustration. They do not replace clinical editorial responsibility. Clinical claims, model behaviour, citations, and public-facing conclusions remain subject to human review.

Questions and challenges

Reasoned disagreement is welcome. Submit the relevant module, claim, and supporting source through the feedback form. OrthoAnimate may revise this policy as the platform, contributor community, and review processes mature.