The roles
Research editor
Compiles each species profile from the reference hierarchy, records every field with its source, and flags any figure that cannot be attributed. The research editor is also responsible for noting where the literature is thin, so that gaps are published as gaps rather than filled with estimates.
Reviewing editor
Independently re-checks each profile against the same sources before publication, with particular attention to measurement ranges, Red List categories and assessment years. Nothing is published on the strength of a single person's reading.
Comparison editor
Writes the interpretive text for featured comparisons and is responsible for the standard that matters most here: describing difference without inventing hierarchy. This role also maintains the rule that no comparison declares a winner or simulates an encounter.
Language editor
Checks that the material reads clearly for a general audience, that technical terms are explained on first use, and that hedged language accurately reflects genuine uncertainty rather than being used as decoration.
Accessibility and standards reviewer
Checks heading structure, alternative text, colour contrast, keyboard navigation and the behaviour of the comparison tool for readers using assistive technology.
How a page reaches publication
- Scoping — the species or pairing is added to the queue and its reference set is assembled.
- Research — every field is filled in and attributed; unresolved figures are marked.
- Independent check — a second editor verifies the figures against the sources.
- Editing — the text is edited for clarity, neutrality and accuracy of hedging.
- Standards review — accessibility, structure and internal links are checked.
- Publication — the page goes live carrying the date of its last check.
- Scheduled review — the page returns to the queue at least once a year, and sooner if an assessment changes.
Why we do not publish personal bylines
Our profiles are compiled from published assessments and field literature rather than from original research, and every page passes through several hands. Attaching one name to that work would misrepresent both how it is produced and the expertise behind it. What we can be accountable for is the process, the sources and the review dates — all of which are published.
Subject-matter checking
Where a topic sits outside the team's competence — an unresolved taxonomic split, a contested population estimate, a regional conservation programme — we take the position published by the relevant specialist body and attribute it, rather than adjudicating between researchers ourselves. Where specialists disagree, we say that they disagree.
Working with specialists
If you work on any of the species covered here and believe a profile misrepresents current understanding, we would like to know. Include the reference and we will review the page and record any change under our corrections policy.