Editorial process

Source tiers

Every citation is assigned one of five tiers. The tier reflects the nature of the source and governs what claims it may support. Higher-tier sources are required for numeric and interpretive claims; lower-tier sources may supplement but cannot stand alone for those purposes.

T1 - Primary

Statistical agencies, central banks, and canonical institutional documents. Includes BEA, BLS, the Federal Reserve, FRED publications, BoE, ECB, IMF data and Article IV reports, BIS, World Bank, OECD, national statistics offices, NBER recession dating, and NBER working papers when cited as canonical institutional positions.

Example: Federal Reserve Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy (2020).

T2 - Peer-reviewed

Published economics with a DOI. Covers the AER, JPE, QJE, JME, JEL surveys, BPEA, and NBER Macroeconomics Annual.

Example: Hazell, Herreno, Nakamura, and Steinsson (2022), “The Slope of the Phillips Curve: Evidence from U.S. States,” QJE.

T3 - Working paper

Papers that have not yet completed peer review. Covers NBER working papers, IMF working papers, BIS working papers, and Federal Reserve staff papers.

Example: an NBER working paper version of a paper that has not yet appeared in a refereed journal.

T4 - Journalism

Named-author pieces with named sources from high-quality outlets: the Financial Times, Reuters, The Economist, and Bloomberg. T4 supplements other tiers but cannot stand alone for a numeric or interpretive claim.

Example: an FT data-desk piece on inventory-led inflation components.

T5 - Explainer

Educational material from credible institutions: Brookings, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Federal Reserve education pages, BoE Knowledge Bank, and ECB explainers.

Example: Bank of England Knowledge Bank entry on money creation.

Numeric or empirical claims require a T1 or T2 source. Historical episode interpretations require T1, T2, or T3. Methodological claims may draw on any tier. T4 journalism cannot stand alone for a numeric or interpretive claim; it must accompany a higher-tier source.

Citation verification

Each citation record carries an id, tier, title, author, year, url, accessedDate, claim summary, and a verified flag. The verified flag is set to true only after a fetch check confirms that the URL resolves and the page content is consistent with the cited claim.

Before a citation is inserted into a chapter, the editor fetches the URL and confirms the content matches the cited claim. The verification attempt is logged by timestamp, HTTP status, content-match result, and tier in docs/audit-response/citation-verification-log.md.

When verification fails because a URL blocks automated access, the content has shifted, or the source has moved, the citation is kept with verified: false if the underlying source is known to be real. When the specific number or claim cannot be confirmed at all, the text is marked with a [citation needed] pill instead. The reference list at the bottom of each migrated chapter renders an “(unverified)” suffix on any citation still awaiting re-verification.

Anti-fabrication policy

The following rules apply to every writer and editor contributing to this site.

• No invented sources. Author, year, title, DOI, page number, and URL must each come from a real document the editor has read or fetched. A source that cannot be retrieved or confirmed does not appear.
• No invented numbers. Every numeric claim in a chapter traces to a cited source. If the source is not in hand, the number does not appear.
• No invented quotations. Direct quotations require an exact text match against a cited source. Paraphrases must be faithful and cite the source they draw on.
• No invented historical events. Episode framings, dates, actor names, and outcomes must trace to a cited source. Interpretive framing must be distinguished from documented fact.
• No invented institutional details. Reserve thresholds, balance-sheet sizes, market microstructure, operating frameworks, and regulatory parameters must trace to a T1 or T2 source.
• When uncertain, defer. The correct response to an unverifiable claim is a [citation needed] marker and a move to the next section. A future revision fills it in.

Review cadence and corrections

Chapters are re-reviewed against current data on a rolling basis. {{TODO_REVIEW: review cadence}}

When a citation or claim turns out to be false or materially misleading, the site corrects or removes it. The correction approach depends on severity. {{TODO_REVIEW: retraction policy}}

Readers who spot a factual error or a stale link can report it directly. {{TODO_REVIEW: corrections contact}}