Grant Readiness
The governance infrastructure a funder looks for, each linked to a live proof page on this site.
The American Society of Hirudotherapy is a nonprofit medical-education society. This page is for foundation and grant reviewers: it gathers, in one place, the governance assets a funder checks during diligence and links each one to the live page that proves it. Everything below describes how ASH documents, sources, and supervises its own work — the operational and governance infrastructure of the organization.
Nothing on this page is a clinical, efficacy, or treatment claim. The assets listed are editorial and organizational: methodology transparency, conflict-of-interest controls, a public corrections record, citation verification, live governance metrics, open data, and named review. Each links to a page that is generated from the same registries the rest of the site runs on, so reviewers can inspect the underlying state rather than take a summary on trust.
Governance assets, each with a live proof page
For every diligence criterion below, the “View proof” link opens the page on this site that demonstrates it. These are governance and infrastructure signals, not measures of clinical benefit.
Editorial methodology, published in full
What funders look for: A documented, repeatable process for how content is produced, sourced, and graded — not ad hoc judgement.
How ASH demonstrates it: The methodology page sets out the evidence-grading framework, source hierarchy, and the review steps every entry passes through before publication.
Editorial policy and standards alignment
What funders look for: Adherence to recognized editorial and disclosure standards (GRADE, ICMJE, EQUATOR) and a stated commitment to editorial independence.
How ASH demonstrates it: The editorial policy maps each ASH practice to an external standard and states the review cadence, source hierarchy, and update triggers in writing.
Conflict-of-interest and sponsorship policy
What funders look for: A written COI and funding-disclosure policy that keeps editorial decisions separate from any commercial or donor interest.
How ASH demonstrates it: The sponsor policy defines what funding ASH will and will not accept and how sponsorship is firewalled from editorial judgement, with disclosure obligations stated up front.
Public corrections log
What funders look for: Evidence that errors are acknowledged and fixed in the open, not quietly overwritten — a marker of editorial accountability.
How ASH demonstrates it: The corrections page is a public, dated record of changes, classified by severity, so any reviewer can audit how ASH handles mistakes over time.
Citation-verification program
What funders look for: A standing process that checks the integrity of cited sources, rather than a one-time literature pass.
How ASH demonstrates it: The PMID audit status page reports which citations in the hand-built registries have been verified against PubMed and which remain in the verification queue.
Live governance metrics
What funders look for: Quantified, current evidence that the documented governance process is actually running across the knowledge base.
How ASH demonstrates it: The governance dashboard renders, at request time, how every registry entry is tagged by regulatory status, evidence level, and audience target — including honest counts of entries still awaiting backfill.
Open data access
What funders look for: Underlying data made available for independent inspection and reuse — a baseline expectation for transparency-minded funders.
How ASH demonstrates it: The open-data page provides public access to the structured registries that back the site, so reviewers can examine the source records directly.
Named editorial review
What funders look for: Identifiable people accountable for content, with stated roles — not anonymous authorship.
How ASH demonstrates it: The editorial policy names the reviewing physician and editorial roles, and page-level metadata records who reviewed each page and when.
How to read this page
Grant readiness here means governance readiness. The list above describes the operational infrastructure that makes ASH an accountable steward of funds — transparent methodology, independent editorial control, public error-handling, verified citations, live metrics, open data, and named review. It is a map of how the organization governs its own content.
It is deliberately not a statement about clinical outcomes, efficacy, or treatment. For the regulatory and evidence framing of any specific topic, see the per-entry pages reached through the Governance Dashboard and the Editorial Policy.