Editorial, Sourcing, and Corrections Policy
This policy explains who creates NekoIQ content, how sources are chosen, how AI-assisted work is reviewed, and how readers can request a correction. Its purpose is to make the evidence trail inspectable.
Creation and review workflow
1. Define the question
We identify the exact claim the page must answer and separate human IQ from feline-cognition intent.
2. Find primary sources
Priority goes to peer-reviewed original studies, official documentation, standards, and systematic reviews.
3. Check the claim
We verify the sample, procedure, measured outcome, publication date, and whether the conclusion exceeds the evidence.
4. Edit for clarity
The answer appears early, limitations remain visible, and statistics include their source or calculation basis.
5. Publish and maintain
Pages show publication and material-update dates. Corrections are made without hiding the previous error.
Source hierarchy
- Peer-reviewed primary studies, official statistics, and official specifications
- Systematic reviews and materials from academic or public bodies
- Secondary explanations by researchers or specialist institutions
- General media and anecdotes are not used as the main evidence for factual claims
Use of AI tools
AI tools may assist with outlining, translation, or drafting. They are not treated as sources. The editorial team remains responsible for checking cited links, dates, study details, calculations, and the final wording before publication.
Medical and veterinary boundaries
NekoIQ does not diagnose people or animals. Articles distinguish research findings from veterinary advice. Persistent pain, disorientation, appetite change, or behavioral change should be discussed with a qualified professional.
Corrections and updates
Material errors are corrected promptly and the page's modified date is updated. Minor typography changes do not trigger a new date. Correction requests should include the page URL, disputed passage, and supporting source.
Last updated: