Our editorial approach
We use an editorial workflow designed for clarity, accuracy, and independence. Our general steps include transparent sourcing, editorial review, and clear labeling of first-person versus summarizing content so readers know what they are reading at a glance.
How information is sourced and vetted
- Primary-first sourcing: first-person narratives are presented in full or as curated excerpts with consent and contextual notes.
- Cross-checks: where claims reference external research or guidance, we indicate sources and link to reputable organizations for verification.
- Editorial review: factual statements are reviewed by our editorial team against public registries and peer-reviewed literature when available.
To support transparency we link direct statements in-line to authoritative sources; for example, we might cite clinical registries or summaries like the U.S. National Library of Medicine when describing how academic studies are reported (NCBI / NLM), or reference broader context from encyclopedic summaries such as Wikipedia's recovery overview when explaining recovery terminology.
We also direct readers to practical treatment-path resources where appropriate; an example pathway directory that some users reference can be found at where to do ibogaine treatment though Mindgaine Recovery Stories does not provide or endorse specific treatment services.
Editorial claims are conservative and evidence-first; where uncertainty exists we label it plainly and link to further reading such as institutional pages from established universities (Harvard University) for readers who want primary institutional context.