Editorial Guidelines

Raising Brilliance is a publication built on trust. This page lays out, transparently, how we write, where we get our information, what positions we take on contested topics in the autism community, and how readers can flag errors when we get something wrong.

If you're a parent, an autistic adult, a professional, or someone else evaluating whether to take this site seriously — these are the standards we hold ourselves to.

How we source information

Every claim on this site that could affect a real decision — about diagnosis, therapy, education, legal rights, or services — should be traceable to a source. We use:

• Government health and education agencies (CDC, NIH, HHS, state Departments of Health and Education) for prevalence data, diagnostic criteria, eligibility rules, and policy information
• Peer-reviewed research for claims about interventions, outcomes, and developmental research — published in journals including Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Autism Research, JAMA Pediatrics, Pediatrics, and Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• State agencies (state autism councils, state Medicaid offices, state Departments of Education) for state-specific service information, waivers, insurance mandates, and educational rights
• Established autism organizations for community perspectives and resource information — including the Autism Society of America, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), and regional chapters. We don't endorse every position of any single organization.
• Recognized professional bodies (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, Behavior Analyst Certification Board) for guidance on professional standards

When we make a claim, we link to its source. When we don't have a source we trust, we say so or we don't make the claim.

We don't cite influencer blogs, marketing pages from therapy providers, or sponsored articles as authorities.

Our positions on contested topics

The autism community contains real debate. We don't pretend it doesn't, and we don't pick sides arbitrarily. Here's where we land on the issues that come up repeatedly in our content.

Language

We use identity-first language as our default — "autistic child," "autistic adult," "an autistic person." This reflects the preference of most autistic adult advocates and a decade of community surveys.

We recognize that some autistic people and some families prefer person-first language — "person with autism," "child with autism." Both are valid choices. When we know a specific person's preference (a quoted advocate, a community member we're writing about), we honor it.

We do not use:

• "Asperger's" except in clear historical context — the diagnosis was removed from the DSM-5 in 2013
• "Suffers from autism," "afflicted with autism," or similar framings
• "High-functioning" and "low-functioning" — these labels have been widely critiqued for misrepresenting both the capabilities and the support needs of autistic people
• "Severe autism" or "mild autism" — when more specificity is genuinely needed, we describe the actual support needs being discussed (communication support, sensory needs, daily living support, etc.)

Causation

Autism has a strong genetic component, with environmental factors that interact with genetic predisposition during early development. The science on specific environmental factors continues to develop.

Vaccines do not cause autism. The original study was fraudulent, has been retracted, its author lost his medical license, and subsequent research involving millions of children has consistently found no link. We won't publish articles entertaining this idea, even to debunk it at length. We'd rather use that space on questions that actually help families.

We don't speculate on autism "prevention." We focus on support.

"Cure" and "recovery" framing

We don't write about autism as something to be cured, fought, recovered from, or beaten. Autism is a different way of experiencing the world, not a disease. We use language about support, quality of life, thriving, and building skills rather than cure or recovery.

This is partly an ethical position about how autism is understood, and we're explicit about that rather than pretending it's a neutral choice.

ABA therapy

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is the most contested intervention in the autism field, and it appears throughout our content. Here's where we land:

ABA is an evidence-based intervention. Decades of peer-reviewed research show it can help autistic children build communication, social, and adaptive skills. It's the most-studied autism intervention and is covered by most insurance plans as a result. We present it as a legitimate option families consider.

The field has changed, and the critiques of older approaches are valid. Earlier ABA models — particularly those focused on extinguishing autistic behaviors like stimming, hand-flapping, or avoiding eye contact through compliance-heavy discrete-trial protocols — have been seriously critiqued by autistic adults, some of whom describe their childhood ABA experiences as traumatic. These critiques deserve to be heard, not dismissed.

Modern ABA looks different. Many providers have moved toward naturalistic, play-based, and trauma-informed approaches that focus on building skills the child and family want, rather than suppressing autistic traits. Early Start Denver Model (ESDM), Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT), and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions (NDBIs) reflect this evolution.

When ABA comes up in our content, we direct parents toward:

• Providers using naturalistic, play-based, or developmental behavioral approaches
• Providers with strong BCBA supervision and reasonable session-to-supervision ratios
• Providers who actively incorporate parent involvement and child assent
• Programs that focus on skill building rather than behavior suppression

We steer parents away from:

• Programs focused primarily on extinguishing autistic traits like stimming, hand-flapping, or self-soothing behaviors
• Compliance-heavy discrete-trial-only models without naturalistic components
• Providers without strong supervision structures
• Any provider unwilling to discuss their methods openly with parents

We don't tell parents to choose ABA, and we don't tell parents to avoid it. We give them the information to choose well, and we acknowledge the legitimate debate honestly.

Other therapies

Speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and developmental approaches are well-evidenced. We describe them factually — what they do, what evidence supports them, what to look for in providers.

Dietary interventions, supplements, chelation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and other biomedical "treatments" range from "limited evidence" to "no evidence" to "actively dangerous." We're honest about what the research does and doesn't support, without being dismissive of parents who have tried these things in search of help. We don't promote them. We don't recommend them.

Our review process

Every article on Raising Brilliance is:

1. Drafted by our editorial team, working from primary sources
2. Self-reviewed for factual accuracy, tone, and language conventions
3. Reviewed by sensitivity readers — autism parents and autistic adults in our editorial network who help us catch tone problems, factual gaps, and framing that could land poorly

Sensitivity readers don't write or edit our articles. They flag concerns, and we address them before publication.

If you're an autism parent or an autistic adult and you'd like to read pre-publication drafts and share feedback, we'd be grateful. Email us at hello@raisingbrilliance.org.

How we keep local content current

Local autism resources — services, providers, wait times, programs — change. Our city and state resource pages show a "Last verified" date prominently. We update local pages as readers flag changes, and aim to do a full review of each local page at least once a year.

If you're a parent in one of the cities we cover and you know something has changed on the ground, please tell us. Local knowledge is how this site stays accurate at scale.

What we won't publish

To be explicit:

• We won't give medical or legal advice presented as recommendations for your specific child
• We won't endorse specific therapy providers, schools, or organizations by name. We describe what to look for and link to authoritative directories — the choice is yours, made with people who know your child.
• We won't publish content promoting biomedical "cures," restrictive diets framed as autism treatments, or interventions without evidence
• We won't entertain debunked science, including vaccine-autism claims
• We won't publish content that frames autistic identity as tragedy
• We won't publish sponsored content disguised as editorial. If we accept advertising or affiliate relationships in the future, we'll disclose them clearly and label sponsored content unambiguously.

Corrections

If you find something on Raising Brilliance that's wrong, out of date, or framed in a way that could be improved — please tell us.

Email hello@raisingbrilliance.org with the URL of the page and what you think we got wrong. We'll review and update.

We'd rather be right than be defensive.

Get the newsletter

If you read this far, you probably care about getting autism content right — which is exactly the kind of reader our weekly newsletter is built for.

Every week we send one email: practical autism resources, local updates, the article we just published, and the things we wish more families had earlier.

Free. Short. Easy to unsubscribe.

[Newsletter signup form: email + first name + Subscribe button]

Join over 1,000 families subscribed to Raising Brilliance.