Publisher review
Each page is checked for definitions, internal consistency, non-graphic scope, source links, uncertainty statements, accessibility and safeguarding alignment.
The UK Kink GuideReview programmeAccountability
What has been reviewed—and what has not.
Current detailed pages have publisher and structural review. External professional review is not claimed unless a named, appropriately qualified reviewer has actually completed it.
Professional-review priorities
Health/medication/sexual wellbeing, disability and access, safeguarding and coercive control, and UK law in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland remain highest priority.
Reviewer requirements
Reviewers need relevant current qualification or a recognised specialist role, practical experience in the reviewed topic, declared conflicts and a written confidence/uncertainty brief for each recommendation.
Review pack
Reviewers receive named pages, key claims, source sets, accessibility checks and risk questions, plus a fixed response date and a change log of accepted, declined or deferred recommendations.
Review boundaries
Named review does not create clinical, legal or product endorsement in other areas. Every review is scoped by topic, method and date and does not replace individual assessment.
Publication standard
A review note appears only when a reviewer has consented to being named. Publication then shows scope, review date, qualification summary and declared conflicts. Anonymous review can improve a page but is not advertised as named approval.
Current backlog and near-term priorities
Unfinished guide outlines are kept out of the public catalogue and direct page routes until they meet the publication standard. High-impact legal, clinical, safeguarding and product-safety content remains first in the review queue. Missing pieces include broader Northern Ireland service detail, external specialist review and a complete filename-level asset-rights register.
Open the review and asset registerEdition 5.0 change record
Updated 6 September 2026: public guide listings and routes now contain completed guides only; twelve end-to-end learning journeys are recorded; the spanking page includes a manual source-to-claim audit pilot; and curated related reading improves priority routes. The edition also adds visitor planning, a recent-updates page, an affiliate activation gate, stronger privacy wording, intrinsic image dimensions and larger small-print text. Edition 3.0 completes the planned product-guide catalogue with eleven additional category pages and explicit clinical, security and specialist-review limits. Edition 3.1 gives every product guide distinct editorial artwork. Earlier work separated education from shopping, introduced the review register and correction form, and removed reader comprehension checks from glossary pages.
Review triggers
Pages are reviewed at least annually and earlier after material legal, clinical or regulator changes, broken primary sources, safety-relevant feedback, or a substantiated correction.
Corrections and participation
Qualified professionals and informed readers can request the reviewer brief. A submission is evidence for review, not a direction to change a conclusion.
Request the professional reviewer briefRead the corrections policy