Skip to main content
Pacific Shores

Editorial

Editorial Policy

Pacific Shores is covered and reviewed as journalism — we treat addiction-treatment information the way a reported health desk treats medicine. This document explains the sourcing standard, the review process, and how we handle corrections.

What counts as a primary source

We tier sources by strength. A clinical claim in an article is acceptable only if it's supported by sources in Tier 1 or Tier 2; Tier 3 is used for context, not for load-bearing statements.

  • Tier 1 (preferred): peer-reviewed medical literature (NEJM, JAMA, Addiction, JSAT, J Subst Use); systematic reviews (Cochrane); federal agency publications with methodology disclosed (SAMHSA data series, NIDA reports, CDC MMWR).
  • Tier 2 (acceptable): state health-department data and regulatory filings; clinical guidelines from accredited bodies (ASAM, APA, AAAP); large-sample public datasets (N-SSATS, NSDUH).
  • Tier 3 (context only): news reports of original clinical findings, advocacy-organization statements, facility self-reports.

How clinical claims are reviewed

No article containing specific clinical guidance — medication dosing, detox protocols, condition-specific recommendations — is published without review by a credentialed reviewer whose practice overlaps the article's subject. A writer may draft a piece on buprenorphine induction, but a clinician with prescribing experience reviews it before it goes live. The reviewer's name and credentials are logged internally; we publish them on request.

For non-clinical content — insurance explainers, cost estimators, state regulatory summaries — review is handled by a staff editor with a background in health policy or insurance, not by the writer alone.

Contested evidence

Treatment for substance use disorder involves multiple modalities with genuine disagreement in the clinical literature. When we cover contested territory — abstinence vs. harm reduction, 12-step vs. non-12-step, long-term MAT vs. tapering — we present the state of the evidence and the positions of different clinical bodies rather than picking a side. Where a meta-analysis or systematic review has resolved a question, we say so; where it hasn't, we say that too.

Updates, reviews, and the "last verified" date

Facility directory entries: re-synced against SAMHSA quarterly (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct). Each listing shows its last-verified date. When SAMHSA updates a facility's record, our listing updates on the next sync.

Editorial guides: major reviews every 12 months for policy content, every 24 months for clinical explainers unless new peer-reviewed evidence or a regulatory change warrants sooner. The "Last reviewed" date at the bottom of each article is authoritative.

Corrections

When we find an error in published content — factual, clinical, or attribution — we correct it at the point of error and log the change. Significant corrections (changes to clinical guidance, factual claims, or named individuals) are noted at the bottom of the article with a dated correction notice.

To report an error: contact the editorial desk. We respond to verified correction requests within five business days.

Independence and disclosures

Pacific Shores accepts no payment from treatment facilities to influence rankings, review content, or directory placement. Facility listings are drawn from the federal SAMHSA database and ordered by user-controlled criteria (geography, level of care, insurance acceptance) — not by commercial relationship.

Our revenue model is information-service based. When we link to external resources, the link is editorial unless explicitly marked otherwise.

Accessibility and accuracy of plain-language content

We aim to explain complex clinical concepts in language accessible to adults without medical training. When we simplify, we cite the technical source so readers who want to go deeper can. We don't dumb down to the point of inaccuracy.