Editorial governance
This page identifies who is responsible for the catalogue, how decisions are made and what independent review has—and has not—taken place.
Governance record for release v3.1.0 · 19 July 2026.
Responsible editor and publisher
The responsible editor and publisher is Professor Alasdair M J MacLullich. The site is an independently maintained educational resource. University of Edinburgh and NHS affiliations identify the editor; neither organisation publishes or endorses the site.
The responsible editor approves additions, exclusions, family relationships, evidence labels, rights states and material corrections. Technical assistance does not constitute clinical approval.
Current review model
Independent external review is not complete
The current release has received structured curator review and automated source, taxonomy, rights, link and interface checks. It has not received complete duplicate independent clinical screening or sign-off from an external multidisciplinary editorial panel. No Harvard, NIDUS, University, NHS or professional-society endorsement is claimed.
Editorial decision process
- Identify the record. Confirm a stable name, purpose, source and relationship to existing families.
- Classify it. Decide whether it is an independent family, version, workflow, emerging method or contextual record.
- Check the evidence. Separate original development, diagnostic accuracy, later validation, implementation and synthesis.
- Check access and rights. Label the source role and avoid implying that a public link grants republication rights.
- Write and review the profile. Use independent prose, state limitations and avoid reproducing a complete protected instrument.
- Publish with an audit trail. Version the record and log material corrections or changes in classification.
Conflicts and self-authored tools
The editor co-developed the 4AT and has research involvement in delirium assessment. These relationships are stated on the disclosures page. The 4AT and other tools involving the editor are subject to the same catalogue fields, source-link requirements and limitations as other records. Their inclusion is not a recommendation, and no financial ranking or paid placement is used.
Future external reviewers should declare relevant authorship, licensing, consultancy, commercial and institutional interests. Where a reviewer has a direct interest in a record, another reviewer should adjudicate material classification or performance claims.
Corrections, disputes and rights-holder requests
Anyone may submit a correction with a reliable source through Contribute and corrections. Instrument developers and rights holders have a separate contact route. A material decision records the affected page, previous and revised position, evidence, date and editor. Credible safety or rights concerns may lead to temporary removal while the evidence is checked.
Review schedule and continuity
- Primary access links and rights states are scheduled for checking at least every six months.
- New studies and instruments are reviewed through documented surveillance rather than silently added.
- Material releases retain a versioned source package, change record and dated red-team report.
- If active maintenance stops, the site should remain available as a dated read-only archive or display a clear notice that review has ceased.
- A future successor editor or panel must be named publicly before responsibility is transferred.