Editorial Process: How “Reviewed By” and “Fact-Checked” Signals Work

2026-01-21•8 min read

Editorial process signals showing reviewed by, fact-checked, and edited by attributions

Editorial process signals—“Reviewed by,” “Fact-checked by,” “Medically reviewed”—build Authority in EEAT. These signals show that content has been verified by someone other than the author, adding a layer of credibility. For YMYL topics especially, editorial oversight signals are critical trust indicators. AI systems recognize these patterns and associate them with higher-quality content.

Key Takeaways

• Editorial signals show oversight—content has been verified beyond the author
• Critical for YMYL: Health, finance, legal content needs expert review
• Name real reviewers—anonymous “fact-checked” claims carry less weight
• Include credentials: “Reviewed by Dr. Jane Smith, MD”
• Display dates: When was it reviewed? When was it last updated?

Types of Editorial Process Signals #

“Reviewed By” #

Indicates expert review of content accuracy. Most valuable when the reviewer has relevant credentials.

Example: “Reviewed by Dr. Sarah Chen, Board-Certified Dermatologist”

“Fact-Checked By” #

Shows that claims and data have been verified for accuracy. Can be done by editors or fact-checkers.

Example: “Fact-checked by Jane Smith, Senior Editor”

“Medically Reviewed” #

Specific to health content. Indicates a licensed healthcare professional has reviewed for medical accuracy.

Example: “Medically reviewed by Dr. Michael Park, MD, FACP”

“Edited By” #

Shows editorial oversight for quality, clarity, and style. Less about accuracy verification, more about content quality.

Why Editorial Signals Matter for EEAT #

Editorial signals address multiple EEAT dimensions:

Expertise: Expert reviewers validate content accuracy
Authority: Institutional processes suggest organizational credibility
Trust: Verification reduces risk of misinformation

For YMYL topics, these signals are particularly important. Health sites without medical review, finance sites without expert verification—these raise red flags for both AI systems and readers.

Google's Quality Rater Guidelines

Google's guidelines specifically mention editorial oversight as a quality signal. Sites with clear editorial policies and visible review processes score higher in quality assessments than those without.

Implementing Editorial Signals #

Where to Display #

Near the byline: Immediately visible after author attribution
In the author box: Full details in the article footer
Article header: Alongside publication and update dates

What to Include #

Written by John Doe, Health Writer

Medically reviewed by Dr. Sarah Chen, MD — Board-certified internist with 15 years of clinical experience

Last reviewed: January 21, 2026 | Last updated: January 21, 2026

Include:

Reviewer's full name
Relevant credentials
Brief qualifier (specialty, experience)
Review date
Link to reviewer profile (optional but valuable)

Schema Markup for Reviewers #

{
  "@type": "Article",
  "author": {
    "@type": "Person",
    "name": "John Doe"
  },
  "reviewedBy": {
    "@type": "Person",
    "name": "Dr. Sarah Chen",
    "jobTitle": "Board-Certified Internist",
    "hasCredential": {
      "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
      "name": "MD"
    }
  }
}

Building an Editorial Process #

If you don't have editorial oversight, consider building it:

1Identify reviewer needs: What expertise does your content require?
2Recruit reviewers: Freelance experts, advisory boards, industry contacts
3Define review scope: Accuracy check, completeness, claims verification
4Document the process: Create an editorial policy page
5Display consistently: Show editorial signals on all reviewed content

Cost-Effective Options: You don't need full-time reviewers. Consider per-article expert reviews, advisory relationships, or periodic audits by qualified professionals.

Creating an Editorial Policy Page #

An editorial policy page documents your quality standards:

How content is created
Who reviews it and their qualifications
Fact-checking procedures
Update and review schedules
Correction policies
Source requirements

Link to this page from your footer. It demonstrates institutional commitment to quality.

Common Mistakes #

Anonymous Review Claims #

“Fact-checked by our editorial team” without names carries minimal weight. Name specific reviewers with credentials.

Irrelevant Reviewers #

A marketing manager reviewing medical content doesn't add value. Match reviewer expertise to content topic.

Outdated Review Dates #

“Reviewed in 2020” on 2026 content suggests neglect. Implement regular review schedules and update dates.

Display Without Process #

Don't add “fact-checked” labels without actual fact-checking. Misleading signals damage trust when discovered.

Summary #

Editorial process signals build trust by showing quality control:

Use specific types: Reviewed by, Fact-checked by, Medically reviewed
Name real people with relevant credentials
Include review dates and keep them current
Implement actual processes, not just labels
Document your editorial standards publicly

For implementation details: Adding Editorial Credibility: Review and Fact-Check Badges

About the Author

Yue Zhu@Seenos.ai

Product Manager at Seenos.ai. Pioneer in AEO research since 2024, exploring the convergence of SEO and GEO (Generative Engine Optimization). Led multiple AI-powered content optimization projects that achieved 300%+ citation increases in ChatGPT and Perplexity.