Editorial Standards
Homeopathy Network publishes in-depth information about homeopathic medicine grounded in clinical literature, repertory data, and practitioner experience. This page explains how we create, review, and maintain our content -- and why we believe transparency about process is the strongest trust signal we can offer.
Our Editorial Philosophy
We treat homeopathy as what it is: a complete, codified system of medicine with over two centuries of documented clinical practice, government recognition in more than 80 countries, and a living infrastructure of hospitals, medical colleges, and research councils worldwide.
Every editorial decision we make flows from a single principle: trust is built into content, not pasted on top of it. Rather than relying on blanket warnings or apologetic language, we invest in credentialed authorship, transparent evidence grading, verifiable source citations, and a rigorous multi-stage editorial process. We believe that readers -- whether patients, students, or practitioners -- deserve accurate information presented with clarity and respect.
How Content Is Created
Each page on Homeopathy Network passes through a structured pipeline designed to combine the depth of classical homeopathic literature with modern editorial rigor. The process has four stages.
Stage 1 -- Data Extraction
Every article begins with primary source data. For remedy profiles, we extract symptom pictures, keynote symptoms, modalities, and remedy relationships directly from the Similia.io repertory database, which indexes major classical repertories alongside materia medica corpora from authors including Murphy, Kent, Boericke, and Clarke. For condition pages, we compile the most commonly indicated remedies by cross-referencing multiple repertory sources and published clinical guidelines, including the CCRH Standard Treatment Guidelines where available.
This data-first approach ensures that our content is anchored in the documented literature rather than individual opinion or anecdotal claims.
Stage 2 -- AI-Assisted Drafting
Structured source data is used to generate initial drafts with the assistance of large language models. These drafts are constrained by detailed editorial prompts that enforce our style guide, evidence grading rules, and terminology standards. The AI acts as a drafting tool -- it organizes, synthesizes, and writes, but it does not originate clinical claims. Every factual assertion is checked against the source data extracted in Stage 1.
Stage 3 -- Expert Clinical Review
Every draft undergoes clinical review by Marco Ruggeri, a qualified homeopathic practitioner. Marco evaluates each page for clinical accuracy, appropriate remedy differentiation, correct potency and dosing context, and faithful representation of the materia medica. He draws on direct clinical experience to verify that symptom pictures, modalities, and remedy relationships reflect real-world practice.
For technical and research-oriented content, Simone Ruggeri reviews methodology, data accuracy, and analytical claims.
Stage 4 -- Quality Assurance
After clinical review, every page passes through automated and manual quality checks:
- Red-team review: An independent AI model reviews each page for evidence grade accuracy, banned terminology, dosing language compliance, and safety completeness
- Linking validation: Internal cross-references are verified to ensure all remedy and condition links resolve correctly
- Frontmatter validation: Structured metadata (evidence grades, author attribution, dates, tags) is checked against our schema definitions
- Constitution compliance: Final check against our editorial constitution, which governs terminology, framing, and safety standards
Pages that fail any check return to Stage 3 for revision. We publish only after a page passes every gate in this process.
Evidence Grading System
We grade the evidence supporting each remedy-condition pairing on a four-point scale. This grading system is our primary transparency mechanism -- it tells readers exactly how well-supported a given indication is, without overstating or dismissing the evidence.
Grade A -- Strong Evidence
Supported by at least one randomized controlled trial (RCT) or systematic review published in a peer-reviewed journal. We provide this grade because formal clinical research exists for certain remedy-condition pairings and readers expect to see it acknowledged. This does not mean the RCT is the gold standard of homeopathic knowledge -- trained practitioner experience and systematic case documentation represent deeper forms of evidence within homeopathy's participatory framework. See our epistemological foundations for why.
Grade B -- Good Evidence
Supported by published clinical studies (observational, cohort, or comparative) or inclusion in the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) Standard Treatment Guidelines. Grade B indicates that clinical data exists beyond traditional materia medica documentation.
Grade C -- Traditional Use
Based on established clinical practice documented in at least two major materia medica sources, consistent practitioner experience, and repertory data. This is where most remedy-condition pairings in homeopathy fall. Grade C is not a weakness -- it reflects the honest reality that homeopathic prescribing has been primarily guided by 200+ years of systematic clinical observation and detailed symptom documentation rather than by RCTs.
Grade D -- Emerging
Limited to a single source, case reports, provings, or early clinical observation. Grade D indicates that the indication is documented but not yet widely corroborated.
Our Grading Commitment
We do not inflate grades. Where a pairing is supported only by traditional materia medica literature, we assign Grade C -- even if it is one of the most frequently prescribed indications in clinical practice. Equally, we do not deflate grades. Where clinical research supports an indication, we assign the grade that research warrants.
Every evidence grade displayed on the site is derived from our knowledge graph, which maps remedy-condition relationships to their supporting sources. For a deeper look at how evidence is categorized across the site, see our Evidence Overview.
Author Qualifications
The Dual-Attribution Model
Most pages on Homeopathy Network use a dual-attribution model: content is written by the editorial team and clinically reviewed by a named practitioner. This model ensures both editorial accessibility and clinical accuracy.
Clinical Author and Reviewer -- Marco Ruggeri
Marco is a qualified homeopathic practitioner whose clinical experience spans the full range of acute and chronic prescribing. He authors our in-depth remedy monographs and condition guides in a first-person clinical voice, drawing directly on practice experience. On team-authored pages, Marco serves as clinical reviewer, validating the accuracy of remedy indications, symptom pictures, and clinical context. Read Marco's full profile.
Research and Technical -- Simone Ruggeri
Simone is an AI research scientist who oversees the data pipeline, evidence methodology, and technical infrastructure behind the site. He authors content related to research analysis and our editorial methodology. Read Simone's full profile.
Homeopathy Network Team
The editorial team writes hub pages, category overviews, navigational content, and general educational material in a third-person voice. Team-authored content is always clinically reviewed by Marco before publication.
Learn more about our full editorial team on the About Our Team page.
Source Standards
We hold ourselves to clear standards about what constitutes a valid source.
Primary Sources
Our content draws from the foundational texts of homeopathic materia medica and repertory:
- Murphy, R. -- Nature's Materia Medica (3rd ed.)
- Kent, J.T. -- Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica
- Boericke, W. -- Pocket Manual of Homoeopathic Materia Medica (9th ed.)
- Clarke, J.H. -- A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica
- Hahnemann, S. -- Organon of Medicine (6th ed.)
These texts represent the primary literature of homeopathy. When we write that a remedy has a particular symptom picture or is indicated for a specific condition, the claim traces to one or more of these sources.
Repertory Data
Remedy-symptom and remedy-condition mappings are cross-referenced through the Similia.io repertory database, which indexes multiple classical and modern repertories. This ensures that our remedy selections reflect broad consensus across the literature rather than any single author's preferences.
Clinical Research
Where published clinical studies, CCRH Standard Treatment Guidelines, or peer-reviewed research exists, we cite it directly and reflect it in the evidence grade. We reference specific studies by author, journal, and year.
What We Do Not Use
We do not cite anonymous internet sources, product marketing materials, unattributed claims, or content that cannot be traced to a named author or published text.
Update and Correction Policy
Published and Reviewed Dates
Published pages display the original publication date and, when applicable, the date of last clinical review. These dates appear in the page header alongside the author and reviewer attribution.
Scheduled Reviews
We conduct a full editorial review of all published content on an annual cycle. During each review cycle, our clinical reviewer re-evaluates remedy indications, evidence grades, and safety information against current literature and clinical experience. Updated pages receive a new review date.
Corrections
If we identify an error -- whether in evidence grading, clinical content, or factual claims -- we correct it promptly. Significant corrections are noted on the page. Readers who identify potential errors can contact us through the site; we investigate every report and update content where warranted.
Evidence Grade Updates
Evidence grades may change over time as new research is published. If a clinical trial upgrades a Grade C pairing to Grade B, or if a previously cited study is retracted, we adjust the grade and update the page accordingly.
Declaration of Independence
No Commercial Bias
Homeopathy Network does not sell homeopathic remedies, supplements, or health products. We have no financial relationship with any manufacturer, pharmacy, or product retailer. Our content recommendations are based entirely on the clinical literature and practitioner experience documented in our sources.
No Sponsored Content
We do not publish sponsored articles, paid remedy endorsements, or advertiser-influenced content. Every page on the site reflects our independent editorial judgment.
No Affiliate Relationships
We do not earn commissions or referral fees from any product or service mentioned on the site. When we reference a remedy, we are discussing the homeopathic medicine as documented in the materia medica -- not promoting a commercial product.
Editorial Decisions Are Clinical
Our editorial team and clinical reviewer determine what content to publish, how to grade evidence, and which remedies to feature for a given condition. These decisions are made on clinical and editorial grounds alone.
Our Approach to Transparency
We believe that the strongest position in health information publishing is radical transparency about what you know, how you know it, and what the limits of that knowledge are. Our evidence grading system, visible authorship, dated reviews, and this standards page are all part of that commitment.
Homeopathy is a system of medicine with a vast clinical literature and a long tradition of careful observation. Much of that knowledge base is graded C on our scale -- documented in multiple authoritative materia medica texts and confirmed by generations of clinical practice. We present that honestly. Where formal research supports higher grades, we present that honestly too.
We do not ask readers to take our content on faith. We show our sources, name our authors, grade our evidence, and explain our process. That is how we believe trust should be built.
For questions about our editorial process, please contact us. For information about how content on this site should be understood in a medical context, see our Medical Information Notice.