Editorial Policy

Editorial Standard

A useful physics page should explain the concept, name the relevant variables, show how the equation is used, identify common mistakes, and link to related material.

Pages are checked for category errors, unsupported claims, formula misuse, contradictory statements, broken links, and old generated template language.

Evidence And Uncertainty

Textbook-level topics are explained from standard physics. Research-adjacent topics should avoid pretending that unsettled questions are settled.

When a claim depends on a specific paper, institution, dataset, or official exam body, the page should either cite a credible source or avoid making the claim.

Advertising Separation

Advertising eligibility does not decide editorial value. Thin, placeholder, duplicate, or low-trust pages may be noindexed or withheld from the sitemap even if they technically exist.

Ads, analytics, and monetization should not obscure the educational purpose of the page.

Reader Accountability And Maintenance

PhysicsTheories.com treats trust pages as part of the educational product, not as decorative legal text. These pages explain who is responsible for the site, how corrections are handled, how sources are judged, how privacy and accessibility questions can be raised, and what limits apply to calculators, study guides, and examples.

Maintenance work is driven by local audits and reader feedback. Pages may be reviewed for broken links, malformed symbols, missing metadata, missing schema, thin content, outdated claims, misleading wording, and unsupported credentials. If a page does not meet the current standard, it may be rewritten, expanded, noindexed, or removed from the sitemap until it is useful enough for public indexing.

Readers should also treat the site with ordinary academic caution. Physics explanations are simplified for learning, and many formulas depend on assumptions such as idealized bodies, constant fields, negligible friction, small angles, nonrelativistic speeds, or standard SI units. High-stakes technical, medical, safety, legal, or engineering decisions require qualified professional review and should not rely on a study page alone.

The preferred way to improve these pages is specific feedback. When reporting a problem, include the URL, the sentence, equation, control, or policy line involved, and a short explanation of the concern. That makes it possible to correct the issue without adding vague claims or unnecessary boilerplate.

Trust documentation is reviewed alongside the public learning pages because policies can become stale just like formulas, calculators, and articles. When the site changes its indexing rules, contact process, advertising status, source standards, or accessibility workflow, the relevant trust page should be updated before the change is treated as complete.

The practical standard is simple: readers should be able to tell what the page promises, what it does not promise, who to contact, and how the policy affects their use of the site.