Editorial Policy

The Rice Purity Test Plus editorial policy sets rules for research, writing, review, updates, and fixes. Our goal is sound and useful work with clear limits. We keep verified facts apart from our reading of them. We do not invent authority.

Review independence

Rice Purity Test Plus is an independent publisher. Rice University and The Rice Thresher do not operate or endorse this site.

Past sources can document past issues. They do not transfer institutional status to this project. We name the source group whenever that distinction matters.

Our findings rest on recorded proof. Search demand, ad goals, and rival conduct do not change a past fact.

Who writes and reviews the pages

Adrian Vale is the pen name used by the person who researches and runs the site. The name keeps this project apart from unrelated private work.

One person currently performs both writing and final review. We do not present that process as independent expert review. We do not invent a team, degree, employer, office, or qualification.

A future expert review will be noted only if it happens. The note will name the type and date of review. A person’s name will appear only with consent.

Our source hierarchy

Firsthand records come first. These include newspaper scans, archive records, official policies, government guidance, and tech standards.

Named school or scholarly sources may add context. Open first-party lists may support claims about their own samples. Rival pages remain market proof only.

The method explains Grades A through D. The source register gives public records used for past and policy claims.

We do not count links as proof by volume. One key firsthand page can outweigh many copied summaries.

Fact and interpretation stay separate

A fact should lead back to a source. Our reading explains why that fact matters. The two must not be blended.

For example, the dated 1988 issue contains 150 items. That is a source fact. Treating it as a distinct version state is a review finding based on that difference.

Unknown facts receive clear labels. We avoid words that make doubt sound settled. We also place limits near the claim instead of hiding them in a footer.

Past and number checks

Past claims are checked against the dated record. We confirm the publisher, page, date, item count, and stated scoring method when available.

OCR helps locate text. The scan controls when OCR is unclear. We keep quotations short and verify them against the image when access permits.

Number claims need a defined sample and date. The 2018 Rice Thresher figures describe one site. They do not prove a broad mean.

We ban made-up group means. We also reject claims about a person’s traits or morals based on a score.

Original writing and copying controls

Pages are drafted from source notes and the claim ledger. Rival pages are not used as prose templates.

We compare drafts against other project pages. Repeated sentences are revised unless the wording is a required disclosure or exact tech label. Distinct pages must keep distinct jobs.

We check rare phrases when a sound outside match is possible. We do not claim a web-wide copying audit without one. Exact rival sentences are banned.

Short source quotes require credit. We prefer plain restatement. No page repeats a full past or for-profit question list.

Sensitive-topic language

The subject can involve sex, drugs, consent, and alleged unlawful acts. We use neutral words. We do not shame or praise a person for a score.

We avoid graphic detail when it adds no factual value. We do not target children. We do not create comparisons by minor age.

A score is a count tied to one list. It is not a medical, psychological, moral, or scientific judgment. Safety or health notes must not pose as expert advice.

Dates and updates

Published, reviewed, and fact-checked dates must describe real work. A date is not changed to make a page look fresh.

A real review checks the claims, links, live page, and key policy. A factual change may need a new review date. A format change alone does not.

Question wording follows stricter version control. Even a spelling fix will require a recorded change after the list is frozen.

Fix standards

Key errors are corrected promptly after check. The future public fix log will state what changed and when.

We do not silently rewrite a disputed date, number, version relationship, or rights statement. Minor spelling or formatting fixes may not need a public entry, but they remain visible in version control.

New proof can overturn an earlier finding. When that happens, the page should explain the stronger proof and update related claims consistently.

Conflicts and funding

The planned for-profit model does not control research findings. Ad approval is not assured. An advertiser cannot buy a favorable reading of a score or past claim.

Any key conflict should be stated beside the work it affects. Paid rankings, endorsements, and hidden sponsor claims are outside the approved model.

Prohibited claims and practices

We do not claim official Rice affiliation. We do not call uncertain wording original or unchanged. We do not invent experts, reviewers, user counts, figures, consents, or legal clearance.

We do not publish fabricated testimonials. We do not copy rival content or legal text. We do not use an AI detector as proof of review quality.

We also do not promise that a quiz score measures innocence, experience quality, health, maturity, or worth. The number has a much narrower meaning.

Accountability

Trust comes from work that can be checked, not badges. Readers should see the source, claim limit, review date, and fix process.

This policy will change only when the real review process changes. A future draft must match the code, source register, and public notices.