Editorial Policy

1. Our standard

We hold ourselves to one rule: if we cannot show where a claim comes from, we do not publish it.

Most dog content on the internet fails this test. It is vague where it should be specific, confident where the evidence is thin, and silent about its sources. Our readers are making decisions about an animal that depends on them, often at an hour when no clinic is open. They deserve to know what we know, how we know it, and where our knowledge runs out.

2. Who writes for us

Kennel and Kin is produced by a seven-person team at KCS Global Group, working across research, writing, and editing. We do not use anonymous freelancers, and we do not buy articles from content mills.

Every article carries a byline naming the person who wrote it, linking to a biography that explains their background and what they cover. If a second person substantially shaped the piece, they are credited too.

We are dog owners and researchers, not veterinarians. Section 8 explains exactly what that means for health content.

3. How we choose topics

We write about questions people are actually asking. Topics come from reader emails, veterinary clinic FAQs, rescue and shelter guidance, owner forums, and the search phrases people type at two in the morning.

A topic is approved when we can define the specific question the article must answer. “Crate training” is not a brief. “How long can a ten-week-old puppy be left in a crate overnight, and what changes at twelve weeks” is.

We do not choose topics because an advertiser or affiliate partner wants them covered, and no outside party sees an article before publication.

5. How we cite

• Specific health, nutrition, and safety claims link out to the source that supports them.
• We link to the primary source, not to another article that quotes it.
• Outbound source links are never affiliate links, and we earn nothing from them.
• Where a source is behind a paywall or is a printed work, we name it precisely enough to be found.
• We paraphrase rather than quote at length, and quote directly only where exact wording matters.

If you follow a citation and find it does not support what we wrote, tell us. That is a correction and we will treat it as one.

6. Fact-checking

Before publication, an editor who did not write the piece checks it independently. They:

• Open every cited source and confirm it says what the article claims it says.
• Verify every number — ages, weights, durations, frequencies, temperatures.
• Flag any claim stated more confidently than the evidence allows.
• Flag anything that crosses from general information into diagnosing or prescribing.
• Check that risks and warnings appear before the instruction they relate to, not after it.

An article that fails this check goes back to the writer. It does not get published with a note promising to fix it later.

7. What every article contains

A named author

With a linked biography setting out their background and what they cover.

A publication and review date

Visible near the top, so you can judge how current the guidance is.

Linked sources

For every specific health, safety, or nutrition claim.

A veterinary notice

On health-related articles, stating plainly that the content is general information and is not advice about your dog.

An affiliate notice

At the top of any article containing affiliate links, before you click one.

A correction note

Where the article has been materially corrected, describing what changed and when.

8. Health and veterinary content

Kennel and Kin does not have a licensed veterinarian on staff, and we will not pretend otherwise. Our team researches from veterinary literature and cites it. We do not review cases, diagnose conditions, or prescribe treatment.

Where an article has been reviewed by a veterinarian, that veterinarian is named on the article with their credentials. If no veterinarian is named, none has reviewed it. We will never imply veterinary review we did not obtain.

Health articles are written to help you recognise when something needs professional attention and to have a better conversation with your vet — never to replace that conversation.

9. What we will not publish

• Unsourced health claims. If we cannot point to where guidance comes from, it does not go in.
• Home medication dosages. Dosing depends on weight, organ function, and other medications. We direct you to a veterinarian instead.
• Aversive training methods. No shock collars, prong collars, or dominance-based approaches.
• Diagnostic content. We will not tell you what is wrong with your dog.
• Paid links or sponsored posts disguised as editorial. We do not sell links, and we do not accept guest posts.
• Content rewritten from another publisher’s article. Paraphrasing someone else’s work to disguise its origin is plagiarism, and we treat it as a dismissable offence.
• Padding. We do not lengthen articles to hit a word count. A question that takes four hundred words to answer gets four hundred words.

10. Our use of AI tools

We use AI tools in parts of our process — for gathering candidate sources, structuring an outline, and producing early drafts. No AI output is published as written. A member of our team rewrites it, verifies every factual claim against the sources in section 4, and puts their name on the result. The named author is responsible for the article, not the tool.

We never cite an AI system as a source, and we never let one decide a health claim. Where an AI tool and a veterinary source disagree, the source wins and the tool’s output is discarded.

11. Review and updating

Published articles are not finished. We review them on a rolling schedule and whenever something prompts it:

• Health and safety articles are reviewed at least once every 12 months.
• Product and gear articles are reviewed at least once every 12 months, or sooner when a product is discontinued or changed.
• Any article is reviewed immediately when veterinary guidance changes, when a source is withdrawn, or when a reader reports a problem.

When we update an article, the review date changes. When we correct a material error, we say so on the article rather than editing quietly.

12. Corrections

We get things wrong sometimes. When we do, we want to know, and we would rather hear it from you than leave it standing.

Send corrections to contact@kennelandkin.com with the article title and the sentence you are questioning. We acknowledge correction reports within one business day and resolve them within five.

Material corrections are noted on the article with the date and a description of what changed. Typographical fixes are made silently. We do not delete an article to make a mistake disappear.

13. Editorial independence

The people who write our articles are not involved in selling advertising, and the commercial side of the business has no influence over editorial decisions. Specifically:

• No advertiser, affiliate partner, or brand sees an article before it is published.
• No one outside our team can commission, veto, or alter an article.
• We do not sell links, and we do not accept payment to include or remove a product.
• Receiving a product sample buys nothing. We say so if a sample was provided.
• An affiliate relationship never determines a recommendation. If the better product pays us nothing, it is still the better product.

14. How we assess products

When we write about crates, harnesses, beds, or other equipment, we explain what to look for before we name anything. Criteria come first; products come second.

We state plainly how we assessed something — whether we used it, examined it, or compared it on published specifications and owner reports. We do not describe hands-on testing we did not do, and we do not write in a way that implies it.

Where a product has a safety concern, that concern appears in the article even if the product is otherwise good, and even if we earn a commission on it.

15. Comments

Comments are the views of the people who write them, not of Kennel and Kin, and we do not verify them. We moderate for abuse, spam, and link placement, and we remove comments giving specific medical or dosing instructions to another reader about an animal nobody has examined.

We do not remove a comment for disagreeing with us. Criticism of our articles stays up.