How we work
The evidence should be visible.
You should be able to see which sources we use, what we have checked, and what remains uncertain. This is how Tidlignok Research works.
Tidlignok Research explains published research. We check that our summaries accurately and clearly describe the published methods, participants, findings and limitations. We do not conduct a new peer review of the researchers' work.
What is the purpose?
Tidlignok Research is developed by Womanhood Initiative to make research on girls' and women's health understandable. We explain findings and evidence, show uncertainty, and examine who results apply to.
Existing material in Tidlignok Women's Health remains where it is. We link the sections when helpful to readers.
How do we select sources?
We prioritise original research articles, systematic reviews, official registers and the project pages of research institutions. We search internationally and use respected research environments as important starting points.
Institutional prestige cannot replace methodological appraisal. We also look for less visible research institutions and samples that add knowledge about understudied people and subjects.
Press releases are a starting point for finding original evidence, not a sufficient basis for a full appraisal.
Which source types do we distinguish?
| Source type | How it is used |
|---|---|
| Individual study | A specific research question, method and sample. |
| Systematic review | A structured synthesis of previous studies; its quality and relevance still require evaluation. |
| Narrative review | A scholarly review that does not necessarily use systematic search and selection methods. |
| Professional guideline | A recommendation from a named organisation or authority, with country and date. |
| Registry report | Describes recorded data, but does not necessarily explain differences or their causes. |
| Protocol or study registration | Describes what researchers plan to do, not completed effectiveness results. |
How do we explain uncertainty?
We explain limitations and uncertainty described by the researchers, including sample size, measurement methods, dropout and the precision of results. Our conclusions stay within what the published source supports.
We do not use colours or institutional rankings as an overall credibility score. When a source has formally assessed certainty, we identify who did so and which outcome was assessed. We never claim to have performed GRADE grading without actually doing it.
What must happen before publication?
- Confirm that the research is published in a verifiable scientific source.
- Accurately describe the methods, participants and results.
- Explain the numbers without drawing conclusions beyond what the researchers can support.
- Make the researchers' stated limitations and uncertainty visible.
- Use understandable language and explain technical terms.
- Provide the original source, publication date and any corrections.
A published abstract is a valid source when it provides enough information for an accurate and reliable summary. We consult the full article when essential details or clarifications are missing. We distinguish the source's publication date from the date of our editorial review.
How are projects and funding updated?
Each entry has a date of last verification and an original source. Recruitment, research activity and published outcomes are separate statuses. Closed recruitment does not mean a study is complete.
Funding calls show geographical conditions, eligibility and deadlines. Expiry dates are not the same as application deadlines. The status describes what was checked on the stated date, not a guarantee of continued availability.
Automatic updating or automatic approval was not established in this first version.
Corrections and contact
Found an error, new publication or changed project status? Email the page link and a brief description to hei@womanhood.no. Material scientific changes should receive a dated explanation on the affected page.