Named responsibility
Matthias Böhm is the author and editorial director. On 19 October 2026, he confirmed authorship and his own review of specified manuscript versions. His profile sets out his journalism and sleep-education background. Author self-review does not establish independent specialist review or publication approval.
A “By” credit identifies the recorded author. An author-review date applies only while the article matches the reviewed version; later material changes require renewed confirmation. A specialist review credit requires a named independent reviewer, relevant qualifications and a record of the version and scope actually examined. A source citation or technical test is not a reviewer’s endorsement.
Evidence is checked at the claim level
We use original studies and appropriate official scientific or health information. We distinguish observations, proposed explanations, general background and optional reflection. Study limitations belong alongside the explanation, especially when a small or selected sample limits what can be concluded.
If access is limited to an abstract, excerpt or related author material, the source record must say so. We do not describe an inaccessible paper as fully read. Unsupported claims should be narrowed, replaced or removed; a longer bibliography is not a substitute.
A citation does not validate a universal symbolic meaning, and naming a university or health organisation does not imply its endorsement of this website.
Review applies to a specific version
Research and a distinct reader question come before drafting. Matthias Böhm takes responsibility for publisher decisions. Recorded AI-assisted editorial, evidence and search-quality checks and the publisher permission must match the current article version. Material changes return the affected work to review.
Independent human or clinical review is credited only when it actually occurred and its scope is recorded. An unresolved evidence or safety finding stops the affected article from release; a specific need for qualified assessment is not waived by publisher approval. Technical checks and an AI review do not count as clinical endorsement.
Current publication status
This edition contains 25 symbol and experience guides with recorded publication approval. Article bylines and dates identify the released work. Specialist review is a separate responsibility and publication approval is not clinical endorsement.
How AI assistance is treated
AI assistance can support research organisation, drafting or technical checks. It does not count as a human author’s expertise, independent review or proof that a statement is correct. The accountable editorial process must check the actual sources and final wording.
We do not invent authors, qualifications, studies, reviews, testimonials or measured search demand. Editorial use of AI is separate from the free reflection tool, which uses browser-based theme matching and does not send dream text to a model service.
Corrections and meaningful updates
Report the page, the specific passage and, where available, a source that helps explain the issue. A proposed correction should be assessed against the underlying evidence rather than accepted because it sounds plausible.
Substantive corrections should explain the affected claim, what changed and why. Material revisions require renewed review. Publication and update dates must reflect actual events; changing a date alone does not make an explanation more current.
Commercial interests and useful coverage
Payment must not buy a favourable explanation or a review credit. Any future advertising, sponsorship or affiliate relationship needs a clear disclosure where it affects the reader’s understanding. The current edition has no active paid reading service.
A useful guide answers a distinct question with relevant detail and proportionate uncertainty. Word counts and templates can identify gaps, but do not establish accuracy. An article can improve by becoming shorter; a new keyword alone is not a reason for another page.