Our commitment to readers: The Mid-Atlantic Professional Review (MPR) publishes considered, useful and evidence-informed writing about management, leadership, professional learning, authorship, publishing and organisational practice. This Editorial Policy explains the principles that guide our work, the responsibilities we accept and the standards readers can expect.
1. Purpose and editorial mission
MPR exists to help readers examine the books, ideas, research and professional debates that shape organisations and working life. We aim to provide clear explanations, critical evaluation and practical context rather than uncritical promotion or simplified answers to complex questions.
Our coverage includes management and leadership literature, business and organisational ideas, professional development, authors and publishing, and the wider practice of informed professional judgement. Our homepage and About page provide further information about the publication and its editorial scope.
2. Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are made on the basis of relevance to our readers, accuracy, quality, originality, usefulness and fit with our editorial scope. Commercial considerations, personal relationships, promotional requests or the interests of an author, publisher, advertiser or other third party must not determine our conclusions.
Where a commercial relationship could reasonably be perceived to affect an article, we will disclose it clearly. Advertising, sponsorship and other paid or promotional material, if published, must be distinguishable from independent editorial content. Payment does not guarantee coverage, a favourable review, a particular conclusion or a link.
Authors and publishers may provide information, suggest topics or supply review copies, but they do not receive the right to approve, rewrite or suppress our independent editorial conclusions. Any exceptional arrangement that affects this principle must be disclosed to readers.
3. Accuracy, evidence and responsible claims
We take reasonable care to ensure that factual statements are accurate, appropriately qualified and supported by sources proportionate to the claim. We seek original or authoritative sources where practicable, check important names, dates, figures and quotations, and distinguish verifiable facts from interpretation, opinion, prediction and recommendation.
When evidence is limited, contested, dated or uncertain, we aim to say so. We do not present an author’s argument, a single study or an illustrative example as settled consensus. Where an article discusses research, we consider its context and limitations rather than relying solely on a headline or abstract.
Our approach is informed by established principles of accuracy, attribution, independence and accountability, including the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. These are reference points for responsible publishing, not claims that MPR is a member of or formally accredited by those organisations.
4. Sources, attribution and intellectual integrity
We aim to identify the sources that materially support an article and to link to relevant primary material when it is available and suitable. Quotations, distinctive ideas, data and material originating with other people or organisations should be attributed. We do not knowingly present another person’s work as our own.
Sources are assessed for authority, relevance, currency, methods, potential interests and proximity to the evidence. A source may be authoritative for one subject and unsuitable for another. Links are provided to help readers inspect supporting material; the presence of a link does not imply endorsement of every statement on the destination website.
We respect copyright and use quotations and other third-party material only where we consider the use appropriate. Readers who believe material has been attributed incorrectly or used unlawfully can contact us through our Contact page.
5. Fairness, balance and conflicts of interest
We seek to represent arguments fairly and in context, including significant limitations or credible opposing evidence where relevant. Fairness does not require giving every position equal weight: the prominence given to a claim should reflect the quality and strength of the available evidence.
Writers and editors should disclose relevant financial, professional, personal or organisational interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their work. Where a conflict cannot be managed through disclosure and editorial safeguards, we may decline the contribution, reassign it or explain the limitation to readers.
We do not knowingly publish fabricated endorsements, undisclosed testimonials or claims that imply an independent assessment where none has taken place.
6. Book reviews and review copies
Book reviews are intended to provide an informed assessment, not promotional copy. We consider a book’s purpose, argument, evidence, organisation, clarity, originality, contribution to its field and usefulness to its intended readership. Our assessment may identify strengths, limitations and areas of disagreement.
Receiving a review copy, advance copy or other access to a book does not guarantee that it will be reviewed or receive a positive assessment. Where a review copy or other material benefit has been provided, we will disclose that fact when it is relevant to readers. We do not accept payment in exchange for a favourable review or a predetermined rating.
Our dedicated guide to authors, writing and professional publishing provides wider context on the publishing process. A separate Book Review Methodology will explain our review criteria and process in greater detail.
7. Commissioned, contributed and AI-assisted content
All material published under MPR’s name remains subject to editorial review and this policy, regardless of whether it is written by an editor, commissioned contributor or external author. We may edit submissions for clarity, structure, accuracy, style and length. We may request supporting evidence, clarification or revisions, and may decline or remove material that does not meet our requirements.
Digital tools, including generative artificial intelligence, may be used to support research, drafting, editing or production. Such tools do not replace editorial responsibility. Material must be reviewed by a human editor for accuracy, relevance, originality, appropriate attribution and compliance with this policy before publication. We do not knowingly publish fabricated sources, invented quotations or unverified AI-generated claims. Where AI use is material to a reader’s understanding of how an article was produced, we aim to disclose it.
8. Corrections, updates and accountability
If we identify a material factual error, we will assess it promptly and correct the article where appropriate. Significant corrections should be made clearly, with an explanation where the nature of the change warrants it. We may also update articles to reflect important developments, clarify ambiguous wording or improve links and references. Updates should not silently alter the substance of an article in a way that misleads readers.
Readers are encouraged to tell us about possible errors, missing context, broken references or concerns about fairness. Please include the article URL, the relevant passage and any supporting evidence through our Contact page. We will review substantive concerns and take appropriate action. Where a serious problem cannot be resolved by correction, we may add an editorial note or withdraw the material.
9. Complaints and editorial concerns
We welcome good-faith complaints about accuracy, attribution, conflicts of interest, fairness or compliance with this policy. Complaints should identify the article and explain the concern with enough detail for us to investigate. We may seek further information from the complainant or the author before reaching a decision.
Editorial complaints are considered on their merits. We do not promise a particular outcome, but aim to handle substantiated concerns fairly and proportionately. Questions about personal information are handled under our Privacy Policy; general website-use terms are set out in our Terms and Conditions.
10. Scope, transparency and policy review
MPR is an independent editorial publication, not an academic journal. Unless an article explicitly says otherwise, publication does not mean that it has undergone formal academic peer review. We aim to describe our processes accurately and not imply institutional affiliations, professional accreditation or external endorsement that we do not hold.
This policy should be read alongside our Disclaimer, Privacy Policy and About page. Our approach is also informed by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, while recognising that MPR is an editorial publication rather than a scholarly journal.
We may revise this policy as the publication develops. Material changes will be reflected on this page. Readers should refer to the version currently published here.
11. Contact the editorial team
For corrections, complaints, questions about editorial independence or other concerns about published material, please use the MPR Contact page. Please mark the enquiry for the editorial team and include the relevant article URL so that we can assess it efficiently.
Editorial Policy of the Mid-Atlantic Professional Review. This page describes the publication’s editorial commitments and should be read together with its related editorial and website policies.