Evidence first. Judgment made visible.

Publishing principles

WHRF publishes only when the subject, evidence and public value are clear. Every substantive briefing should identify its author or accountable institutional author, publication date, source base and status. Developing work is labelled as such and is not described as a completed programme or finding.

Sources and verification

Primary documentation is preferred: law and policy texts, court records, official statistics, direct statements and materials from organisations with relevant access. Secondary sources are evaluated for provenance, expertise, recency, independence and corroboration. A cited source supports a particular statement; it does not imply that WHRF endorses every position of its publisher.

Allegations, estimates and judicial findings are described differently. Material uncertainty, limits of access and conflicting credible accounts are disclosed rather than smoothed away.

Authorship and review

Bylines identify the responsible author or WHRF editorial team. Contributors must disclose relevant interests. Substantive outputs receive an editorial review for sourcing, language, legal and safety risks, and consistency with the stated method. Specialist or external review is identified when it has occurred; it is not implied when it has not.

Ethics and do-no-harm

The dignity, agency, privacy and safety of affected people take priority over dramatic presentation. WHRF minimises identifying detail when disclosure could create risk, uses trauma-aware language, avoids dehumanising imagery and does not treat consent to participate as consent to every future use. Children and people in vulnerable circumstances require heightened safeguards.

Corrections and updates

Material factual errors are corrected promptly and the nature of a consequential change is noted on the page. Clarifications distinguish imprecise wording from a factual correction. Routine formatting fixes need not carry a public note. Updated analysis retains its original publication date and displays a reviewed or modified date where the substance changed.

Feedback and complaints

Readers may challenge a fact, source, omission, framing choice or potential conflict by emailing join@whrf.org. Include the URL and specific concern. WHRF acknowledges actionable requests, assesses the evidence, and communicates the outcome where contact details are available. Safety-sensitive information should not be sent by ordinary email without first agreeing a secure channel.

Independence and funding

Editorial conclusions are not offered in exchange for funding, partnership, access or publicity. Relevant financial or institutional relationships are disclosed with the work when they could reasonably affect a reader’s assessment. See the funding transparency policy.