Editorial Policy

Last updated: July 22, 2026

This policy describes how Infowell selects health topics, evaluates evidence, uses software, edits claims, handles commercial separation, and corrects published pages.

Editorial scope

Infowell publishes English-language educational guides in women’s health, nutrition, fitness, sleep, gut health, mental wellbeing, and evidence-based supplements. We do not publish material outside this defined health and wellness scope. A new page must solve a distinct reader task; if a current page already owns the intent, we update or consolidate instead of creating a near-duplicate.

People-first topic selection

A topic must have a real reader decision, sufficient reliable evidence, and a useful action beyond summarizing search results. We reject pages created only to capture a keyword, repeat a competitor list, or expand site volume. Every brief records the intended reader, exact question, existing owner URL, evidence feasibility, potential harms, and what new information or tool the page will provide.

Source hierarchy and claim mapping

For material health and safety claims, we prefer current clinical or public-health guidance, government and regulatory sources, systematic reviews, and relevant peer-reviewed primary research. Reputable clinical summaries may provide context but should not replace stronger evidence when it is available. Community discussions and testimonials may reveal questions; they are not proof of safety or effectiveness.

Each material claim must map to a source that supports its actual scope. We preserve relevant population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome, timeframe, dose, uncertainty, and limitations. We do not convert association into causation, group averages into individual promises, animal or mechanistic evidence into clinical outcomes, or one study into scientific consensus.

Original reader value

A useful Infowell page should add editorial synthesis, not just more words. Depending on the task, this may include a decision table, food-first or behavior-first options, a realistic checklist, a symptom or habit log, questions to ask a clinician, contraindications, red flags, a source-conflict explanation, or a clear description of what the evidence cannot answer.

We do not claim first-hand product testing, professional review, patient experience, or expert ranking unless a documented method and accountable person genuinely exist. “Best,” “top,” and winner language require transparent criteria and supporting evidence; otherwise the title and body must remain descriptive.

AI and other software

Software, including AI-assisted tools, may help organize notes, compare structure, flag repetition, or improve readability. It may not serve as the factual source or final editor. No article should be published solely from automated output. Manual review and curation must verify the original sources, claim boundaries, medical safety, intent ownership, internal links, disclosures, and public rendering.

We do not use “humanizing” to disguise weak information. Editing for a natural voice must preserve citations, uncertainty, contraindications, red flags, and care guidance.

Medical safety and review

Articles are educational and cannot account for an individual reader’s diagnoses, medications, pregnancy status, laboratory results, allergies, surgery plans, or other risks. Topics involving symptoms, supplements, medication interactions, disordered eating, pregnancy, severe mental distress, or potentially urgent conditions receive stricter safety review. Where relevant, pages explain when professional or urgent care may be appropriate.

An editorial review is not the same as medical review. We do not label a page “medically reviewed” unless an identified, appropriately qualified reviewer has actually reviewed that version and the relationship is disclosed.

Updates and corrections

We review pages when guidance changes, a source is withdrawn or materially updated, a reader reports an error, a claim no longer matches its source, or the page’s usefulness or safety falls below this policy. Material corrections should be explained rather than silently concealed. The current update date must reflect a substantive review, not a cosmetic timestamp change.

Correction requests may be sent to infowellhub@gmail.com with the article URL, disputed text, and supporting source.

Advertising and conflicts

Advertising does not determine topic choice, evidence interpretation, safety wording, rankings, or corrections. Sponsored or affiliate relationships, if used, must be disclosed. Payment cannot buy a favorable conclusion. See the Advertising Disclosure.

Publication gate

One clear reader task and one canonical intent owner.
Current, claim-level source record with retrieval date.
Original synthesis or practical decision support.
Calibrated language, limits, safety, and care guidance.
No fabricated experience, credentials, rankings, quotations, or statistics.
Manual editorial review and duplicate/template check.
Working internal and external links, one H1, self-canonical, and indexability check.
Mobile, keyboard, contrast, overflow, image, console, and public read-back verification.