Interstitium is guided by scientific rigour, evidential grounding, conceptual precision, methodological awareness and clarity about how conclusions are derived from evidence. These principles apply to all contributions while recognising the distinct purposes of Scientific Essays, Research Commentaries and Responses.

Scientific Relevance and Editorial Selection

Interstitium selects contributions for their capacity to illuminate a consequential relationship, distinction or interpretive problem that has received insufficient attention.

A contribution should do more than summarise an existing field, assemble findings from different disciplines or present novelty as an end in itself. It should clarify why a particular relationship matters, how it affects scientific interpretation and what additional understanding emerges when the problem is examined from a different perspective.

Editorial selection considers:

• relevance to the aims and scope of Interstitium;
• quality and appropriateness of the supporting evidence;
• clarity and coherence of the central argument;
• accuracy in the representation of existing research;
• appropriate recognition of uncertainty and limitations;
• capacity to improve explanation or generate further scientific inquiry.

Compatibility with the scope of Interstitium does not require agreement with an established position or with an editorial position of the publication. Alternative interpretations are assessed on the strength of their reasoning and evidential basis.

Evidence and Scientific Representation

Scientific claims should remain proportionate to the evidence on which they are based. Contributions must represent cited studies accurately, including relevant methodological conditions and limitations, and distinguish between what a study demonstrates and what may reasonably be inferred from it.

Evidence should not be selected solely because it supports a preferred interpretation. Relevant findings that complicate, qualify or contradict an argument should be acknowledged when they materially affect its evaluation.

Sources should be traceable and appropriate to the claim being made. Preference should be given to primary research and systematic evidence syntheses where available. Other scholarly sources may be used when they provide necessary historical, theoretical or disciplinary context.

Observation, Interpretation and Hypothesis

Interstitium requires contributions to distinguish clearly between:

• observations or findings reported by individual studies;
• patterns or conclusions supported across multiple sources;
• the author’s synthesis or interpretation;
• working hypotheses;
• theoretical or exploratory propositions.

Interpretation is an essential part of scientific reasoning, but it should not be presented as a finding reported directly by the cited research. Hypotheses and theoretical propositions are welcome when their evidential basis is stated, their assumptions are made clear and their implications can be examined critically.

Speculative reasoning may have scientific value when it identifies a neglected possibility or opens a productive line of inquiry. Its provisional status should be stated clearly and, wherever possible, it should lead to comparisons capable of distinguishing between alternative explanations, observable implications or questions that can be investigated empirically.

Limitations and Degree of Confidence

Conclusions should be expressed with a degree of confidence appropriate to the quality, consistency and directness of the available evidence. Where relevant, contributions should identify significant evidential gaps, methodological constraints, plausible alternative explanations and limits to generalisation.

Scientific Essays should distinguish between published findings, the author’s synthesis or interpretation of those findings, and propositions advanced for further examination.

Research Commentaries should distinguish between limitations demonstrated by the published evidence and questions that remain unresolved because the necessary evidence is not yet available. The absence of reported evidence should not automatically be treated as evidence against an interpretation; its significance depends on whether the relevant evidence could reasonably have been expected to be detected.

Responses should make clear whether their argument concerns the evidence cited, its interpretation, the assumptions underlying the argument, the terminology used or the scope of the original commentary. Where the available evidence does not permit a firm resolution, this should be acknowledged.

Conceptual Originality

Interstitium understands conceptual originality as more than the introduction of unfamiliar terminology or unconventional conclusions. Its scientific value lies in the capacity to organise knowledge in ways that improve explanation and investigation.

A concept, distinction or model should help to:

• reveal a relationship that is not readily visible within an existing classification;
• distinguish phenomena previously treated as equivalent;
• connect findings across relevant levels of analysis;
• account for evidence that remains difficult to accommodate;
• generate more precise or empirically assessable propositions.

New concepts should therefore be introduced only when they perform a clear analytical or explanatory function. They must be defined precisely, related to existing terminology and remain open to revision in light of evidence.

Scientific Criticism and Dialogue

Research Commentaries and Responses should engage with scientific claims, methods and interpretations rather than with the presumed motives of their authors.

The work under discussion must be represented fairly and in its relevant context. Criticism should distinguish between a limitation of a particular study, a limitation of the available evidence and a broader limitation of an explanatory framework.

Where reasonable alternative interpretations exist, they should be acknowledged. The purpose of criticism is not merely to identify error, but to clarify what the evidence permits, which questions remain unresolved and how the scientific problem might be examined more precisely.

Editorial Assessment and Publication Status

Contributions published by Interstitium undergo assessment by the Scientific Editor. This assessment considers scientific relevance, evidential support, accuracy of representation, coherence of argument and clarity about how conclusions are derived from evidence.

Specialist advice may be sought when clarification of a disciplinary, methodological or evidential question is required. Such consultation does not constitute formal external peer review and is not presented as such.

Scientific Essays, Research Commentaries and Responses published by Interstitium are editorially assessed scholarly contributions. They are not presented as externally peer-reviewed research articles.

Where a contribution discusses or develops research previously published in a peer-reviewed journal, the source and publication status of that research are stated clearly. The peer-review status of the original research does not extend automatically to the interpretation published by Interstitium.

Where the Scientific Editor is also the author of a contribution, this is disclosed transparently. Editorial assessment in such cases is not independent and is not presented as equivalent to independent editorial assessment or external peer review.

Editorial Independence and Disclosure

Interstitium is published by the Centro Rausenbach de Análisis e Investigación (CRAI). Editorial decisions are based on scientific relevance, evidential grounding and compatibility with the aims of the publication.

Institutional, professional, personal or financial interests that could reasonably be perceived as affecting a contribution must be disclosed. Institutional proximity to the research or ideas under discussion must not be used as a substitute for evidence or critical examination.

Authorship and attribution must reflect actual intellectual contributions. Sources, data, images and previously published ideas must be acknowledged appropriately.

Corrections and Transparency

Interstitium maintains a transparent publication record. Errors affecting scientific accuracy, interpretation, attribution or disclosure will be corrected when verified.

Minor corrections may be incorporated with an accompanying notice where appropriate. Substantive changes that alter the meaning or interpretation of a contribution will be dated and described. If a serious problem undermines the reliability or integrity of a publication, a withdrawal or retraction notice may be issued while preserving the relevant publication record wherever possible.

Clarity and Scientific Precision

Contributions should communicate their arguments as clearly as the subject permits without suppressing necessary complexity.

They should be intelligible to scientifically informed readers, including researchers from neighbouring fields. Specialised terminology, conceptual distinctions and inferential steps should be explained wherever this is necessary for understanding the argument.

Clear writing enables readers to distinguish where evidence ends, where interpretation begins and whether a proposed connection genuinely advances scientific understanding.