EnglishYorùbáIgboHausa

Our Editorial Process

Every article on Ilerada passes through the same process before it reaches you. We would rather publish slowly than publish wrong.

This page explains how that process works — who writes our content, how it is reviewed, how we handle errors, and how we decide when an article needs updating.

Why we have a formal process

Quite often, an article appears online, it gets shared, and there is no way to know whether a clinician ever looked at it, when it was written, or whether the guidance is still current.

We think that is a problem. Health information that is wrong, outdated, or written for the wrong context can cause real harm. It can delay someone from seeking care. It can cause someone to take the wrong medicine or the right medicine in the wrong dose. It can frighten people unnecessarily, or — just as dangerously — reassure them when they should be worried.

Our editorial process is our answer to that. It is not perfect. We make mistakes, and we correct them. But every article that carries our name has been through a reviewable chain of accountability, and the name and credentials of the clinician who reviewed it are always visible.

Step 1 — Commissioning

Articles are commissioned by our editorial team based on three sources:

1. Reader questions. The questions Nigerians actually search for, write to us about, and ask their pharmacists and CHEWs. “Why is my blood pressure high?” “What does this rash mean?” “Can I take paracetamol while pregnant?” These are the questions Ilerada exists to answer.

2. Nigerian disease burden. We prioritise conditions that disproportionately affect Nigerians — hypertension, malaria, sickle cell, diabetes, maternal and neonatal health, tuberculosis, and the mental health conditions that carry stigma and are rarely spoken about openly.

3. Nigerian clinical calendar. We plan content around the malaria season, immunisation campaigns, World Diabetes Day, Sickle Cell Awareness Month, and other moments when health topics are most relevant to our readers.

We do not commission articles to promote products, medicines, or supplements. We do not commission content at the request of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, or any commercial partner. Our editorial decisions are made entirely by our editorial team.

Step 2 — Drafting

Articles are drafted by one of two types of writer:

A Nigerian clinician writing directly. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and specialist health workers who write for Ilerada produce a first draft in their area of expertise. Their draft is then edited (see Step 3).

A health writer working from a clinical brief. Where a commissioned topic requires more research or where a clinician-writer is not available, a trained health writer drafts from a brief provided by the editorial team and from published clinical guidelines. Their draft is then reviewed by a clinician (Step 3) before any other editing takes place.

In both cases, drafts are expected to:

  • Follow current Nigerian clinical guidelines where they exist (including FMOH, NCDC, and specialist society guidelines), and international guidelines (WHO, NICE, specialist bodies) where Nigerian-specific guidance is not available or is silent on a point.
  • Acknowledge uncertainty — if evidence is thin, contested, or not yet settled, we say so.
  • Use Nigerian context throughout: Nigerian foods, Nigerian emergency numbers, Nigerian health facilities, Nigerian drug availability.
  • Include the red-flag signs that mean “stop reading and go to a hospital today.” These go near the top of every article where they are relevant.
  • Be written for a target reading age of 12 — the level at which health information becomes genuinely accessible to most readers, including those reading in a second or third language.

Step 3 — Clinical review

This is the step that distinguishes Ilerada from most health content online.

Every article is reviewed by a registered Nigerian healthcare professional who is independent of the person who wrote the first draft. The reviewer is not the same person as the writer. They have not seen the brief. They are reading the draft cold.

The reviewer is asked to check:

  • Factual accuracy. Is every clinical claim in the article correct, based on current evidence and current guidelines?
  • Completeness. Is there anything important missing — a red flag that should be there, a drug interaction that needs mentioning, a group of people for whom the general advice does not apply?
  • Safety. Is there anything in the article that could, if followed by a reader, cause harm?
  • Nigerian appropriateness. Are the medicines mentioned available in Nigeria? Are the doses, routes and formulations described those a Nigerian reader would actually encounter? Are the emergency numbers and referral pathways correct?
  • Reading level. Is the language genuinely accessible, or has clinical jargon crept back in?

The reviewer may approve the article as written, request changes, or — in rare cases — reject the article on the grounds that it cannot be made accurate and safe without a more fundamental rewrite.

The reviewer’s name, professional credentials, and the date of their review are published with every article. We believe this is a non-negotiable accountability measure. Readers deserve to know who stood behind a piece of clinical content.

Step 4 — Editorial pass and publication

After clinical review, the article is returned to the editorial team for a final pass:

  • Language is checked for clarity and reading level.
  • Headings are reviewed for accuracy and scannability.
  • The “Read this first” red-flag section is confirmed to be near the top and correctly formatted.
  • Internal links to related Ilerada articles and external links to sources are checked.
  • The metadata (category, target keyword, excerpt, featured image alt text) is completed.
  • The clinical reviewer’s details are entered into the reviewer fields, which populate the byline badge and the Schema.org structured data that search engines read.

The article is then published. The publication date and the last-reviewed date are both displayed on every article. They are sometimes different: a publication date of 2025 and a last-reviewed date of 2027 means the article was published then reviewed again two years later — the clinical content reflects the 2027 review, not the 2025 draft.

Updating articles

Medical guidelines change. Drug availability changes. Epidemics emerge. What was correct advice two years ago may not be correct today.

Our update policy:

  • Every clinical article is scheduled for re-review no later than two years after the date of last review. Before we publish, we schedule that review automatically.
  • We review articles earlier than the two-year mark when: a relevant guideline changes, a new drug becomes widely available or an existing one is withdrawn, a significant new piece of evidence is published, or a credible correction is submitted.
  • When an article is re-reviewed, the reviewer confirms whether the content is still accurate, makes any necessary changes, and updates the last-reviewed date. The article is not “refreshed” just to update the date — the clinical content must genuinely warrant the current date.
  • Where an older article exists on a topic but has not yet been reviewed and updated, we display a note saying when it was last reviewed and encouraging readers to check with a healthcare professional for current guidance.

Corrections

We get things wrong. When we do, we correct them clearly and quickly.

How to submit a correction. Write to corrections@ilerada.com with the title of the article, the specific claim you believe is wrong, and (if possible) a source or reason. We read every submission.

What we do with corrections.

  • We acknowledge your submission within five working days.
  • We investigate: the original reviewer, any other clinical reviewers available, and the published literature.
  • If the correction is confirmed, we update the article, publish a correction note at the bottom of the article explaining what was changed and when, and update the last-reviewed date.
  • If we cannot confirm the correction, we tell you why. We do not remove claims simply because a reader disagrees — but we take every submission seriously.
  • For urgent safety corrections (something in an article that could cause immediate harm if acted upon), we act within 24 hours and temporarily add a caution note to the article while the investigation is ongoing.

Transparency. We do not silently edit articles after publication and pretend they were always correct. All corrections are documented on the article. We believe this is basic editorial honesty.

Translation review

Ilerada publishes content in English, Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa. The translation process follows the same standards as the English editorial process, with one additional requirement: medical terminology in each language must be reviewed by a clinician who reads that language.

Machine translation is used as a starting point only. Raw machine translation of health content is not published. A human reviewer — and specifically a clinician who speaks the target language — reads the translated article before it is published. This is particularly important for Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa, where medical terminology is not standardised in the way that English medical terminology is, and where a wrong translation of a critical instruction could have serious consequences.

Where a translation is provisional and awaiting clinical language review, it is marked as such.

Conflicts of interest

We disclose material conflicts of interest on articles where they exist. Our policy:

  • Clinical reviewers are asked to declare any financial relationship with a pharmaceutical company, medical device manufacturer, or other commercial entity with an interest in the topic of the article they are reviewing. A conflict of interest does not automatically disqualify a reviewer — sometimes the most qualified person to review a cardiology article is a cardiologist who has received research funding from a pharmaceutical company — but we disclose it.
  • Writers are asked to declare the same.
  • Cormen’s commercial relationships (see How We Are Funded) do not influence the editorial content of any specific article. Our editorial and commercial teams operate separately, and our funding model explicitly prohibits advertisers or sponsors from shaping clinical content.

Who is responsible

The editorial chain of accountability for every published article is:

  1. The writer — responsible for the accuracy of the first draft.
  2. The clinical reviewer — responsible for clinical sign-off.
  3. The editorial team — responsible for the final published version.
  4. The Editor-in-Chief — responsible for editorial policy and for the integrity of the process overall.

Errors that survive this chain are our collective responsibility, and we correct them.

Get in touch

Medical disclaimer: Ilerada provides general health information reviewed by qualified clinicians. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your doctor or a qualified health provider. In an emergency, call your local emergency number.