Contributors

How Psilobase Is Built

Psilobase is a collaborative, volunteer-driven project. Content is developed through a multi-stage process: subject-matter researchers draft material drawing on peer-reviewed literature, harm-reduction organisations' guidelines, and mycological resources; science writers then edit for clarity and accessibility; and reviewers check citations and consistency before publication. No single author's perspective dominates — each section is cross-checked against current scientific consensus.

Because psilocybin research is a rapidly evolving field, we operate a rolling review cycle: major sections are revisited at least quarterly, and any significant new finding — such as a new clinical trial result or a change in legal status in a key jurisdiction — triggers an immediate update. Readers who spot errors or outdated information are encouraged to contact the editorial team with a source reference.

Editorial Team

The core editorial team is responsible for commissioning, writing, and reviewing content. Members bring backgrounds in:

• Pharmacology and neuroscience: ensuring that mechanism-of-action explanations, dosage guidance, and interaction warnings reflect current evidence accurately.
• Mycology: reviewing species identification pages, lookalike cautions, and cultivation guides for taxonomic accuracy and safety.
• Clinical psychology and psychotherapy: advising on therapeutic frameworks, integration practices, and contraindication guidance — particularly around mental health conditions and medication interactions.
• Harm reduction practice: grounding content in real-world settings — festival environments, peer support contexts, and community education — rather than laboratory conditions alone.
• Science communication: making research intelligible to a general audience without sacrificing accuracy or nuance.

Specific team members are not listed by name in order to protect the privacy of volunteers working in a field that remains legally sensitive in many jurisdictions. We believe the integrity of our process — cited sources, transparent methodology, and responsiveness to corrections — is a stronger trust signal than a list of names.

Expert Advisors

A panel of external advisors reviews specific sections for specialist accuracy. Advisors are drawn from the following fields:

Medical and Clinical

Physicians and clinical researchers familiar with psilocybin's pharmacological profile advise on contraindications, medication interactions, and dosage safety thresholds. Their input is particularly important for the Safety and Microdosing sections, where clinical nuance matters most. Advisors reference published protocols from Johns Hopkins University, NYU Langone, and Imperial College London's Centre for Psychedelic Research, as well as guidance from MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies).

Mycological

Mycologists with field identification experience review the species guide pages, ensuring that lookalike comparisons are accurate and that safety warnings reflect genuine risk. Particular attention is paid to toxic lookalikes such as Galerina marginata and Pholiotina rugosa, where misidentification can be lethal. Advisors also review cultivation guides for accuracy and safety.

Legal and Policy

Legal advisors provide context on psilocybin's regulatory status across key jurisdictions, including the United States (federal Controlled Substances Act and state-level decriminalisation measures), the United Kingdom (Class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971), the European Union, Canada, and Australia (where Schedule 9 reclassification under the TGA took effect in 2023). Legal status changes frequently, and advisors flag updates that require content revisions.

Harm Reduction Practitioners

Practitioners with experience in peer-support settings — festival harm reduction, integration circles, and telephone crisis support — advise on the emergency procedures, bad trip management, and integration sections. Their practical perspective ensures guidance is useful in real situations, not just theoretical scenarios.

Community Contributors

A substantial portion of Psilobase's ongoing improvement comes from the wider community. Community contributors:

• Submit corrections — readers who identify inaccurate dosage figures, outdated legal information, or broken citations, and provide a credible source for the correction.
• Suggest new topics — requests from readers are the primary driver of our editorial backlog. Common requests have led to sections on integration practices, harm reduction for specific populations, and policy updates.
• Translate context — readers with direct cultural or regional knowledge have helped us add nuance to sections covering Indigenous use, regional legal differences, and culturally specific integration practices.
• Test accessibility — readers using assistive technologies, or who have identified readability problems, have directly shaped improvements to navigation, contrast, and reading level.

Community contributors are not listed individually, both to protect privacy and because the list changes with every update cycle. However, we are grateful for every message that helps make this resource more accurate and more useful.

Research Sources We Draw On

Psilobase is not an original research institution — we synthesise and communicate existing evidence. The primary sources we draw on include:

• Peer-reviewed journals: JAMA Psychiatry, Psychopharmacology, Neuropsychopharmacology, The Lancet Psychiatry, and Nature Mental Health
• Research institutions: Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, Imperial College London's Centre for Psychedelic Research, NYU Langone Health, and MAPS
• Harm reduction organisations: DanceSafe, Zendo Project, Fireside Project, and the UK's Drug Science
• Government health agencies: NHS (UK), NIH (US), TGA (Australia), and EMA (EU) for clinical safety data
• Mycological societies: North American Mycological Association (NAMA) and regional equivalents for species taxonomy and identification guidance

Every factual claim on Psilobase should be traceable to a cited source. If you find a claim without a citation, please report it via the contact page.

How to Get Involved

Psilobase welcomes new contributors. The most useful contributions are:

• Submitting well-sourced corrections to existing content
• Proposing new sections backed by credible evidence
• Reviewing content in areas where you have specialist expertise
• Helping improve accessibility for readers with disabilities or different reading levels

Please write to the editorial team with a brief description of your background and what you would like to contribute. All contributions are reviewed before publication, and volunteers retain editorial input on their areas of expertise.

Frequently Asked Questions