INSIDE EMBRYO · HOW WE EXPLAIN THE SCIENCE
Editorial Policy
Accessible language. Traceable evidence. Honest uncertainty. These are the standards that guide Inside Embryo’s educational content.
Explain what a source supports—and what it does not.
State who wrote or reviewed an article.
Readers can flag errors and missing context.
Purpose and editorial responsibility
Inside Embryo helps patients understand fertility care and helps learners explore reproductive science. Content should be respectful, clear and free from blame, sensationalism or promises of treatment success.
Manoj Kumar K, M.Sc. Assisted Reproduction and Embryology, is the founder and responsible editor. His background is described on the Author Profile page. Professional experience does not replace supporting evidence or make every article a medical review.
Our publishing standard
- Start with a useful questionIdentify the intended audience and what the page should help them understand.
- Check the evidencePrioritise relevant guidelines, systematic reviews, peer-reviewed studies and authoritative educational sources.
- Explain the limitsSeparate established knowledge from evolving evidence, opinion and illustrative examples.
- Check the presentationReview wording, source links, image labels and the distinction between education and personal advice.
- Publish transparentlyShow authorship and genuine publication or review dates; disclose relevant interests.
Sources, uncertainty and numerical claims
References should support the specific statement being made, not simply discuss the same topic. Where possible, readers should be able to follow a link to the source. Older research can remain useful, but its relevance and limitations need context.
Research summaries should distinguish laboratory outcomes from clinical outcomes, and association from causation. Success-rate discussions should identify the outcome, population and denominator; a percentage from a study is not an individual prediction.
Where evidence is limited, mixed or not directly applicable, the content should say so. A commercial provider’s claim is not treated as independent proof.
Authorship and review labels
Author, reviewer and update labels must describe work that actually occurred. An article should be labelled “medically reviewed” or “peer reviewed” only when that specific review has taken place and the reviewer’s identity, qualifications and review date are provided.
Inside Embryo does not imply that an unnamed clinical panel reviews every article. Contributors should disclose relevant qualifications and conflicts. Educational content is not a substitute for advice from a reader’s treating team.
AI assistance and visual accuracy
AI tools may assist with drafting, editing, layout or educational illustrations. The responsible human author remains accountable for verifying factual statements, references and labels before publication. AI output is not a source of clinical evidence.
Generated or simplified visuals should be labelled as illustrations when they might otherwise be mistaken for clinical photographs. They must not be presented as an actual patient’s outcome, a diagnostic image or a validated grading tool. Significant limitations, such as lack of scale, should be clear.
Independence and commercial interests
Content should not promise results, exploit anxiety or imply that a reader is at fault for infertility. Any sponsorship, payment, affiliate commission or relevant personal interest should be disclosed near the affected content.
Paid material should be distinguishable from independent educational material. Employers and institutions named in a biography are not presumed to endorse the website. References to equipment or treatments do not by themselves constitute recommendations.
Corrections and updates
To report a possible error, email contact@insideembryo.com with the page URL, exact sentence or image label, your concern and a supporting source if available. Please leave out patient identifiers.
The editorial standard is to assess the issue, compare the evidence and correct substantiated inaccuracies. Substantive changes should carry an explanatory correction or update note; minor spelling and layout fixes need not. If content is withdrawn for a serious accuracy concern, an explanation should be retained where appropriate.
Review is prompted by reader feedback, important new evidence or identified errors. A displayed review date must correspond to an actual review, not an automatic date change. We do not promise a fixed review interval for every article.
Contributors and reader privacy
Patient stories, case material and identifiable images require appropriate permission and privacy safeguards before publication. An enquiry or private message must not be treated as permission to publish a person’s story.
Suggestions are welcome through the Contact page. Requests for individual diagnosis, prescriptions or confidential report interpretation are outside the website’s editorial purpose.