About

Our editorial approach

We collect, structure, and present information so people can compare and understand variation across center types without confusion. Our sourcing is transparent: registries, published literature, official guidance, and primary institutional documents inform our summaries. Where appropriate we cite authoritative public references such as Wikipedia for general context (information theory overview) and government health pages for sourcing methodology (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

How we vet content

Content is cross-checked against registries, primary organization statements, and peer-reviewed literature where available. We prioritize verifiable, public documents and aim to surface source links inline with each entry so readers can trace statements back to original materials. This editorial model follows standard transparency practices used by reference resources such as university libraries (Stanford Libraries).

What we cover

Mexican Ibogaine Directory publishes structured descriptions of center types, organizational features, and editorial guides that help visitors interpret distinctions. Our content is organized by descriptive categories and tagged so readers can filter by features, verification level, and region. If you are already browsing our public index, you may find quick links from here into the wider directory — for example we link to an external registry guide that some readers use as an overview (treatment registry overview).

Who this is for

Our audience includes researchers, journalists, clinicians seeking background, and members of the public who want a clearer map of how center types are described. We link from our editorial notes to sibling pages on the site, such as an explanation of services offered on our Services page, so readers can move between high-level editorial descriptions and practical guides.

Editorial principles

• Independence. We remain unaffiliated with providers and do not accept clinical referrals.
• Clarity. Content is structured and written to minimize technical jargon.
• Accuracy. Sources are cited and verifiable; we correct clear errors promptly.
• Evidence-first. Claims are grounded in primary documents or recognized authorities.

Proof and accountability

We operate a public corrections log and a versioned content trail so changes are transparent. For governance we adopt norms similar to established archives and academic repositories; these practices align with guidelines used by reputable institutions (Library of Congress).