Editorial standards
Body of Evidence is an independent journalism website which focuses on endometriosis and adenomyosis. It is written and edited by me, Beth McCowen (MA Sports Journalism, St Mary’s University Twickenham). These are the standards that guide every piece I publish.
Accuracy and evidence-based reporting
Reporting on complex health conditions demands care and precision. Every factual claim on Body of Evidence is checked against reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed research, clinical guidelines, specialist organisations, and experts with relevant qualifications and experience.
I aim to reflect the current state of knowledge, including uncertainty, disagreement and gaps in the evidence. Where research is limited, emerging or contested, that is stated clearly. I avoid sensationalising findings, overstating what studies show, or implying certainty where none exists.
Statistics are used with context: sample sizes, study design, key limitations and, where useful, comparisons that help readers understand the scale and relevance of what is being reported.
How sources are selected and verified
Sources are chosen for their expertise, relevance and independence. For scientific and medical topics, I prioritise:
- Peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals
- Official guidance from recognised professional bodies and public health agencies
- Clinicians and researchers with demonstrable expertise in endometriosis, adenomyosis and related fields
- Patient advocates and people with lived experience, especially when reporting on the impact of disease and care systems
Where possible, claims are corroborated by more than one source. If a fact cannot be verified to an acceptable standard, it is either excluded or clearly signposted as uncertain, anecdotal or under debate.
All sources are treated with sceptical curiosity. That means asking who benefits from a particular claim, seeking out conflicts of interest, and being transparent with readers about the strength and limits of the evidence.
Reported journalism vs personal experience and opinion
Body of Evidence publishes different kinds of pieces:
- Reported journalism is based on original reporting, documentary evidence and expert input. These pieces aim to inform, scrutinise and explain. They are edited to meet the standards outlined on this page.
- Analysis and commentary pieces draw on reporting and evidence but may include more interpretation and argument. Where that is the case, it is made clear to readers.
- Personal essays and first-person pieces are grounded in lived experience. They may reference research and expert opinion, but they are not presented as neutral news reporting.
Corrections and clarifications
Accuracy is the priority, but mistakes can happen. When they do, they are corrected promptly and transparently.
- If a factual error is identified, the article is updated as soon as reasonably possible.
- A note is added at the end of the piece explaining what was changed and, where relevant, why.
- Substantive corrections that materially affect the meaning or impact of a story are clearly marked with the date of the change.
- Minor edits to fix spelling, grammar or style that do not alter meaning may be made without a formal correction note.
Corrections apply across formats. If a podcast episode contains a significant factual error, the show notes will be updated and, where necessary, an audio correction or clarification will be added in a future episode.
Independence and funding
Body of Evidence is independent. There are no display advertisers, no paid-for editorial and no sponsored content. No company, clinic, charity or individual pays to influence what is covered or how stories are reported.
If, in future, funding or partnerships are introduced, they will never buy editorial control. Any financial relationships that could reasonably be considered relevant to readers will be clearly disclosed on the site.
Conflicts of interest and lived experience
I live with endometriosis and adenomyosis myself. That experience is part of why Body of Evidence exists, and it informs the questions I ask and the stories I pursue.
That lived experience is always disclosed where it is directly relevant to a piece. It does not replace critical distance. I apply the same standards of evidence, fairness and scepticism to stories that touch my own experience as I do to any other subject.
If a potential conflict of interest arises — for example, a personal, professional or financial connection to a source or organisation — it will either be clearly disclosed to readers or I will step back from reporting on that story.
How to raise concerns
Readers, listeners, sources and experts are encouraged to challenge and question the work published here. If you believe something is inaccurate, incomplete, unfair or presented without sufficient context, you can raise it directly.
To raise a concern or request a correction, contact: beth@body-of-evidence.com
This page will be reviewed and updated as Body of Evidence grows and as best practice in health and science reporting evolves.