Editorial and Corrections Policy

Vero publishes educational material about clinical documentation, healthcare technology, artificial intelligence, privacy, medical records, and related workflows. This policy explains who is responsible for that material, how evidence is handled, how commercial interests are disclosed, and how corrections can be requested.

Publisher and commercial interest

Vero Scribe Inc. develops and sells clinical AI documentation software, including an AI medical scribe. That commercial interest is relevant when Vero publishes articles about AI scribes, clinical documentation software, product comparisons, or competing services.

Articles that directly evaluate the category, Vero, or another documentation product should identify Vero as the publisher and disclose the product interest where it could affect a reader's interpretation. Vero product claims are not treated as independent evidence. A comparison should distinguish peer-reviewed research, official guidance, vendor documentation, and Vero's own statements.

Advertising, commercial relationships, or product strategy do not justify changing a research result, hiding a material limitation, inventing a credential, or presenting a vendor claim as independent proof.

Authorship

Articles use a visible byline that links to an author profile when the site has a verified profile entry. The profile describes the person's editorial role and the subjects covered on Vero. A contributor is not presented as a clinician, lawyer, privacy officer, or other regulated professional unless that identity and role have been verified.

The named author is responsible for the article's editorial organization and for representing the cited material accurately. Publisher, author, and reviewer roles should match the visible page and its structured data.

Clinical and specialist review

Health-related articles may require review by a clinician or another subject specialist. A reviewer is credited only after reviewing the final factual content. The reviewer must be different from the author, have a current site profile, and be associated with a review date when the article system supports it.

A reviewer credit means the named person reviewed the article within the stated scope. It does not mean the article is patient-specific advice, that every jurisdiction has been assessed, or that the reviewer endorses a product. If a final review has not occurred, no reviewer should be named or added only in structured data.

Evidence and sourcing

Vero articles should prefer sources in this order:

1. current regulators, governments, standards bodies, and professional organizations;
2. peer-reviewed original research and systematic reviews;
3. first-party technical documentation for product-specific facts; and
4. high-quality secondary reporting when a primary source is unavailable.

Material benefit, safety, accuracy, privacy, cost, and performance claims should link to the supporting source near the claim. Research results should retain the design, sample, setting, date, and important limitations when those details affect interpretation.

Vendor documentation can establish what a vendor says a product does. It does not independently establish clinical benefit, accuracy, return on investment, or superiority. Fictional examples and illustrative calculations must be labelled so readers do not mistake them for patient cases or measured outcomes.

Product comparisons

Comparisons should define the reader's decision, apply the same criteria to each option, and avoid universal winner labels that the evidence cannot support. Publicly verifiable product facts should include a source and a last-checked date when they are likely to change.

Vero may explain how its own product works, but any internal result, customer observation, or clinic pilot must state the setting, period, sample, product version, measurement method, and material limitations before it is used as evidence. If a verified internal dataset is not included, the article should not imply that one exists.

Corrections and updates

Readers can report a possible factual error, broken source, missing conflict disclosure, or attribution problem through the contact page or by emailing support@veroscribe.com. A useful request identifies the page, the statement at issue, and any supporting source.

Vero will assess the source and the significance of the issue. Substantive corrections should update the article's modification date and the visible text or attribution. Minor spelling or formatting changes may be corrected without a separate notice. A request does not guarantee that an article will change when the available evidence supports the current wording.

Articles should be reviewed when a cited law, regulator document, study, product fact, or workflow standard materially changes. Updating a date without reviewing the relevant content is not an editorial update.

Questions about this policy

Questions about authorship, specialist review, sourcing, conflicts, or corrections can be sent through the Vero contact page.