Our Editorial Methodology

Salox Review accepts no advertising, no sponsored content, and no product placement. No party external to the journal has any influence over editorial decisions, subject selection, or the content of published pieces. We do not accept free products, equipment, or services in exchange for coverage. We do not participate in affiliate programmes.

Our contributors practise yoga. When equipment, props, or resources are mentioned in our writing, they are mentioned because they are relevant to the subject being discussed, not because any commercial relationship exists. We name specific products only when the naming is genuinely informative and unavoidable; otherwise we describe by category.

The journal is supported by reader trust alone. We regard our independence as the primary condition of our usefulness. Any compromise to that independence would end the thing we are trying to do.

Subjects are selected on two criteria: that the writer has direct and sustained experience of the subject being addressed, and that the subject is one about which honest, useful writing is actually possible. We do not write about practices our contributors have not themselves maintained. We do not write about results we have not observed.

We apply a particular test to proposed subjects: is there something genuinely worth saying about this that is not already said, and said well, elsewhere? Yoga is a heavily published subject. We add to that body of writing only when we believe we can add something that a practitioner at an early or intermediate stage would actually find useful, and would not easily find in another form.

We do not write about yoga philosophy, spiritual traditions, or the historical and cultural dimensions of yoga practice. This is an editorial boundary, not a sceptical one. Those subjects require different forms of expertise and a different kind of writing. Our contributors are movement practitioners who write well. We stay within that lane.

Our primary material is direct observation from sustained practice. When a contributor describes what a posture produces, they are describing what it has produced in their own practice, over sufficient time to distinguish consistent effect from variation. We do not describe expected results; we describe observed ones.

Where our observations are consistent with published research, we note that consistency. Where they diverge from received wisdom in yoga instruction, we note that divergence and explain our position. We do not defer to authority — including the authority of traditional yoga instruction — when our experience contradicts the claim being made. We also do not dismiss traditional instruction simply because it lacks a particular kind of evidence base. Both directions of error are worth avoiding.

We do not conduct formal experiments. We are not a research journal. What we offer is disciplined practitioner observation: the account of what extended, attentive practice actually produces, written by people who have done the work and can describe it accurately. We believe this form of knowledge is genuinely valuable and genuinely distinct from the knowledge produced by controlled study.

We use the word "may" when a result is observed but not universal. We use "tends to" when a pattern is observed across sufficient instances to be characterised as a tendency but not a rule. We use "produces" when we are confident enough in an observed result to state it without hedging. This is not a fixed vocabulary, but it reflects a consistent effort to match the force of our claims to the quality of our evidence.

We do not make health claims. We do not describe yoga as approach or practice. We do not state or imply that any practice described in our writing is appropriate for any specific wellness condition. Where a subject touches on areas where wellness guidance is relevant — injury, chronic pain, structural conditions — we note that appropriately qualified guidance should be sought.

We write plainly. We avoid the inflated language that characterises much wellness writing: the language of transformation, breakthrough, and revelation. We also avoid the opposite failure — the studied understatement that refuses to describe what practice genuinely produces because doing so might sound enthusiastic. Yoga, practised consistently and well, produces real and significant effects. We describe them as they are.

We correct errors promptly and conspicuously. When a factual error is identified and confirmed, we update the relevant article and append a correction note at the base of the piece stating what was corrected and when. We do not silently amend published content.

When a reader identifies a potential error, we take the query seriously. We investigate before making a correction — we do not correct on the basis of assertion alone — but we respond to all factual queries within two business days to indicate that the query is being examined.

Corrections can be submitted by email to [email protected] with the subject line "Correction Query" and the URL of the relevant article. We credit readers who identify errors by name in the correction note, unless they prefer to remain anonymous.

Salox Review covers yoga practice, flexibility, and daily movement as physical disciplines. We are a general-readership publication, not a specialist one: we write for people who practise or who are considering practice, not for instructors, physiotherapists, or researchers (though these readers are welcome).

We do not cover meditation or mindfulness except insofar as they are inseparable from the physical practice being described. We do not cover nutrition, supplementation, or any modality outside the movement domain. We do not review products, studios, teachers, or retreats. We are a writing publication, not a reviewing one.

We publish on no fixed schedule. We publish when we have something worth publishing, at the standard we have described above. We regard the alternative — publishing on a schedule regardless of whether the writing meets that standard — as a worse trade. Readers who find value in what we produce are better served by occasional publication of good work than by regular publication of work that meets a deadline rather than a standard.