Editorial Policy

Purpose and audience

The Liver Critical Care Hub is an independent resource for healthcare professionals and researchers interested in the care of critically ill people with liver disease.

Its purpose is to make relevant evidence easier to find, understand and apply critically. The Hub does not provide medical advice for individual patients and does not replace clinical judgement, local guidance or consultation with an appropriate specialist service.

Editorial scope

The Hub covers topics relevant to liver intensive care, including acute liver failure, acute-on-chronic liver failure, decompensated cirrhosis, transplantation, alcohol-associated liver disease, infection, organ support and the areas where hepatology and general critical care overlap.

The Hub does not aim to report every publication or provide a comprehensive textbook. Content is selected where it is likely to be clinically useful, methodologically important, educationally valuable or relevant to the development of liver critical care as a field.

Content types

Content is organised into four clearly labelled sections:

• Research provides Evidence Deep Dives of selected recently published studies. Each Deep Dive explains why the study matters, how it was conducted, what it found, how the findings can be interpreted in context, their relevance to liver critical care and the questions that remain. It is a detailed study walkthrough rather than a score or verdict. Whenever a paper receives a full appraisal, the original study is also included in the Key Papers library under its published title with a direct link to the primary source.
• Knowledge Portal provides referenced reviews, practical primers and clinical frameworks. These are educational resources, not protocols, and should be interpreted alongside current guidance and local practice.
• Opportunities provides curated factual listings of relevant jobs, fellowships, research posts, courses, conferences and collaborative projects. Inclusion is not an endorsement by the Hub.
• Opinion provides clearly labelled personal or invited viewpoints. Factual claims should be referenced where appropriate, and evidence should be distinguished from the author’s interpretation.

Topic selection

Topics are selected according to clinical relevance, methodological interest, educational value, timeliness and potential importance to the liver critical care community. Selection reflects editorial relevance and does not imply endorsement of a study, author, organisation, product or opportunity.

Positive findings are not automatically prioritised over negative or inconclusive work. Evidence that challenges established practice may be covered where the methods and clinical question warrant attention.

The Founder and Editor currently holds final responsibility for topic selection and publication decisions. Suggestions from readers and contributors are welcome, but submission does not guarantee publication.

Evidence Deep Dive approach

An Evidence Deep Dive is a detailed study walkthrough, not a score or verdict. Their purpose is to explain what a study asked, how it was conducted, what it found and which questions remain.

The study's design, originality and clinical contribution are described in context. Features that support interpretation and sources of remaining uncertainty are presented proportionately, without implying that the Hub is grading the investigators. The Hub does not speculate about authors' motives or competence, and authors are not criticised for questions their study was not designed or powered to answer.

Deep Dives distinguish the study's reported findings from contextual interpretation. Important contributions and useful signals are recognised without overstating what the study can establish. Uncertainty and alternative interpretations are described honestly in language intended to support research and clinical discussion.

Sources and references

The Hub prioritises primary sources, including original peer-reviewed research, supplementary appendices, published guidelines, official organisational documents, trial registries and original opportunity listings. Secondary sources may be used for context but should not replace the primary source for important clinical or numerical claims.

Before publication, clinical claims, numerical results, quotations and references are checked against the cited source. DOI and source links are checked where available. Preprints, conference abstracts and other material that has not undergone peer review will be clearly identified.

References support transparency but do not make an interpretation definitive. Where evidence is uncertain, conflicting or indirect, this should be made clear.

Review standards

Every publication receives editorial review and a source check proportionate to its content. The review applied differs by section:

• Research: the methods, principal results and key numerical claims are checked against the primary paper and relevant supplementary material. The Deep Dive distinguishes reported findings from contextual interpretation and presents relevant study features, remaining uncertainty and unanswered questions proportionately.
• Knowledge Portal: clinical content is referenced and reviewed for accuracy, balance and practical relevance. A date of last clinical review is displayed. Additional specialist review may be sought where appropriate.
• Opportunities: material facts are checked against the original listing at the time of publication, including eligibility, location, deadline and source link where available. Listings are periodically rechecked and may be archived when they expire.
• Opinion: pieces are reviewed for clarity, relevance, appropriate disclosure and the accuracy of factual claims. The central argument remains the view of the named author.

At the current stage of the Hub, editorial and clinical review may be undertaken by the same named editor. External or specialist review may be sought, and will be identified where it has occurred and the reviewer has agreed to be named. Unless explicitly stated, publication on the Hub should not be described as independent peer review.

Authorship and contributor responsibilities

Every article has a named human author or editor who accepts responsibility for the published content. Authors and contributors are expected to:

• provide accurate and original work;
• cite sources appropriately;
• distinguish evidence from interpretation;
• declare relevant financial and non-financial interests;
• protect patient confidentiality;
• obtain any necessary permissions for material they provide; and
• disclose material use of artificial intelligence in preparing the work.

Artificial intelligence tools are not listed as authors. Final editorial decisions remain with the Founder and Editor. Substantive editorial changes to contributed work will normally be agreed with the named author before publication.

Conflicts of interest

Authors, editors and reviewers should declare interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence their contribution. These may be financial, professional, academic or personal. Relevant declarations will be displayed with the content or on the site’s Conflicts and Funding page.

A declared interest does not automatically prevent publication, but it must be visible and appropriately managed. Where the Founder and Editor has a material conflict, this will be disclosed and additional editorial or specialist input will be sought where necessary.

Funding and commercial influence

The Hub is independently edited. Editorial decisions must not be controlled by an employer, university, professional organisation, funder, advertiser, sponsor or commercial partner.

Sponsored editorial content is not currently accepted. If the Hub receives funding, sponsorship, advertising or material support in future, the source and nature of that support will be disclosed. Commercial support will not confer a right to select topics, approve copy or alter editorial conclusions. Advertising, if ever introduced, will be clearly distinguishable from editorial content.

Patient confidentiality

Identifiable patient information must not be submitted to or published by the Hub. Case-based material will only be used when it is appropriately anonymised and any necessary consent or permission has been obtained.

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, peer-review material or private correspondence will not be shared or processed without appropriate authority and suitable confidentiality safeguards.

Corrections and updates

Published pages display publication and update dates. Content may be updated when important evidence, guidance, opportunity status or factual information changes.

Minor corrections that do not alter meaning, such as spelling or formatting changes, may be made without a formal notice. Material corrections will be identified on the article or page. Content may be archived or withdrawn if it is no longer reliable, if confidentiality has been compromised or if continued publication would be misleading.

Readers are encouraged to report possible errors. Concerns will be reviewed against the source material and corrected where warranted.

Use of artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence may support literature surveillance, initial classification, article structure, drafting support, language editing, formatting and administrative workflows. It does not select or publish content autonomously.

A named human remains responsible for every publication. Clinical claims and references are checked against primary sources, and AI-generated citations are not accepted without verification. Material AI involvement in an individual article or image will be disclosed where appropriate. Further detail is set out in the AI Use Statement.

Raising a concern

Questions about accuracy, attribution, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, editorial process or AI use can be sent to livercriticalcarehub@gmail.com.

Please identify the relevant page or article and describe the concern as specifically as possible. Good-faith concerns will be reviewed, and material errors will be addressed transparently.

Independence

The Hub is an independent professional project. Its content does not represent the official position of any NHS trust, university, employer or professional organisation unless explicitly stated.

Patients & Public

The Patients & Public section signposts independent support organisations and routes into public involvement and research participation. Inclusion is for information only and does not imply clinical endorsement. The Hub does not provide individual medical advice, and external organisations remain responsible for their own content, services and eligibility criteria.