Editorial standards
QFT.org aims to give readers enough explanation to understand a result, reproduce its central calculation, and judge where it applies. These are the standards that guide page writing and subsequent improvements.
Scientific arguments that can be checked
Section titled “Scientific arguments that can be checked”A treatment should define the necessary objects and assumptions before using them. Derivations should connect the steps that determine the result, with particular care for signs, units, normalization, domains, boundary conditions, and the order of limits. A proof outline should say which steps it omits. An approximation should identify its controlling parameter and failure conditions.
Checks depend on the claim. They can include a second derivation, a symmetry identity, a limiting case, a counterexample, an independent numerical method, or agreement between canonical and functional-integral constructions. Computational results should retain the inputs, editable code, convergence or uncertainty information, and the conditions needed to reproduce them.
Sources and research claims
Section titled “Sources and research claims”Citations should support the nearby claim and cover its actual hypotheses. Whenever possible, links identify the relevant section, equation, or printed page in the cited edition. A bibliography supports the exposition; it does not replace a missing explanation or calculation.
Research discussions distinguish exact results, controlled approximations, numerical evidence, observations, and conjectures. They state consequential cutoffs and limitations and describe material disagreement or negative evidence. A newer paper does not automatically supersede a stronger result.
Learning and reading
Section titled “Learning and reading”Pages should have a clear purpose, proportionate preparation, and working links to the subjects on which they depend. Worked examples show how to use the ideas. Exercises should test understanding and transfer, with solutions that explain the reasoning.
Figures should make a relationship clearer than prose or equations alone. Captions and text alternatives should communicate their main point. Mathematics, navigation, and scientific figures are checked at desktop and narrow widths; keyboard access, themes, magnification, and print are part of the intended reading support. An editorial walkthrough is distinct from a study with actual learners or assistive-technology users, and we do not claim such studies without conducting them.
Automated editing and its limits
Section titled “Automated editing and its limits”AI tools assist with drafting, calculation, source comparison, and technical implementation. Jie Ren maintains the site. AI-assisted writing does not constitute independent human peer review or endorsement by the authors of cited work.
Consequential claims need independently checkable calculations or sources. Repeated AI checks can share mistakes, and a passing software check does not establish scientific correctness. When an assumption, source, or calculation changes, its dependent conclusions need to be checked again.
Corrections
Section titled “Corrections”Email renphysics@qft.org to report a questionable step, citation, normalization, numerical result, or accessibility problem. Include the page address, the relevant passage or equation, and a proposed correction or supporting source when available.
A material correction should explain the scientific change and check its dependent arguments. A result that cannot be supported should be qualified or withdrawn. If an immutable edition is issued, substantive corrections must identify that edition rather than silently alter it. The site does not promise a response time or describe unresolved findings as settled.