Editorial standards

How our articles are written and reviewed

Financial content for physicians is a high-stakes category. A wrong number about PSLF, a stale IRS limit, or a misread of a contract clause costs real money — sometimes six figures of it. These are the standards every published article on Attending Financial meets.

Who is behind the content

Attending Financial is written and reviewed by one practicing physician: Jonathan Shafer, DO, the founder. Every article and module carries its author and its reviewer for accuracy by name. Today those are the same person, and the byline says so — “written and reviewed for accuracy by” — rather than implying an independent panel that does not exist. Where a second physician reviews a piece, that reviewer is named on the piece. The disclosure is deliberate: the reviewer owns the platform, and the review is a fact-check against primary sources, not an independent editorial board.

The review process

Every article goes through the same workflow before publication: it is drafted to a documented editorial brief, checked against our canonical sources for current figures (IRS revenue procedures for contribution limits and tax brackets, Federal Student Aid for loan and PSLF program rules, SSA for wage-base figures), and then reviewed by a physician for accuracy, clinical-world realism, and plain language. Claims about programs in regulatory flux are flagged internally and individually verified before the piece is published. Nothing publishes from a draft state without that review.

Kept current, dated honestly

Tax limits, loan rules, and federal programs change. Articles carry their published and last-reviewed dates, are tied to the rule year they describe, and are re-reviewed when the rules they depend on change — at minimum annually for anything tied to IRS figures. If an article is out of date, the dates say so.

No commissions behind any sentence

We accept no commissions, referral fees, or advertising from lenders, insurers, recruiters, or financial-product companies. No article exists to steer you toward a product that pays us — none do. The platform is free and earns nothing from any seller, which is the entire reason the content can price a refinance offer, a permanent life policy, or a physician mortgage in full — including the parts the seller has no incentive to raise. The full commitments are documented on our no-conflicts page, and the methodology behind our compensation data is on the methodology page.

Where we do not take a side

Some financial questions have a defensible consensus answer, and we state it: term insurance over whole life for a physician with unfilled tax-advantaged space, low-cost diversified funds over stock selection. Other questions depend on facts about a household that we cannot see, and on those we equip rather than conclude. Whether to hire a financial advisor is one of those.

Attending Financial does not have a position on whether a physician should hire a financial advisor. It has a position on whether a physician should be able to evaluate one. Our content may explain how fee structures work, what they cost, what standards apply, and what questions expose a conflict. It may not conclude, imply, or structurally lead toward the answer — in either direction. The reader decides; we equip.

The test we apply before publishing: could this be published, unchanged, by an organization that owned an advisory firm and by one that competed with advisory firms, without either being embarrassed? If not, it is advocacy, not education, and it does not ship.

Corrections

If something is wrong, we fix it and re-date the article. Members can flag an error from inside the platform; anyone can reply to any email we send. Errors in dollar figures or program rules are treated as urgent.

Educational content, not individual advice. Articles explain how programs and rules work; they do not know your situation. For decisions with large dollar consequences, confirm current rules at the primary source and consider independent professional advice.