Editorial Policy

How we choose topics

We prioritize questions people commonly have about insomnia and sleep — why sleep becomes difficult, what maintains it, and what approaches have evidence behind them — and we build out a topic in enough depth that a reader can act on it responsibly rather than leaving with a partial answer.

What we base articles on

We prefer authoritative clinical guidelines and peer-reviewed evidence over general wellness content. Where a claim is well established in clinical guidance, we cite the guidance. Where evidence is narrower — a single study, a specific population, an association rather than a proven mechanism — we try to say so rather than presenting it with more certainty than it has.

Plain-language translation

Clinical language is often precise but inaccessible. We aim to translate it into plain language without stripping out the nuance that makes it accurate — including the uncertainty, the exceptions, and the parts that don’t fit a tidy headline.

Citation expectations

Specific factual claims — recommendations, statistics, mechanisms, and findings — are cited inline and linked to a numbered reference list at the end of the article. General explanatory or editorial framing (for example, describing a common experience or walking through an example) is not individually footnoted, since it isn’t a discrete factual claim.

Editorial explanation vs. clinical claims

We distinguish between explaining a concept (how stimulus control works, why worry can keep attention on sleep) and asserting a clinical claim about you specifically (whether you have insomnia, what treatment you need). Articles are written to do the former. They intentionally avoid the latter.

What we try to avoid

• Exaggerated certainty — presenting a single study or an emerging finding as settled fact
• Fear-based framing — using alarm about sleep loss or long-term risk as a persuasion tactic
• Turning general population guidance into an individualized prescription (an exact sleep number, a bedtime, a treatment schedule)
• Blurring education with individualized treatment — the two are handled separately, and this site only does the former

Evidence hierarchy

When multiple types of source are available, we generally prefer them in this order:

1. Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements
2. Government and major professional medical organizations
3. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
4. Peer-reviewed primary research
5. High-quality clinical reference material

This is a preference, not a rigid rule. Lower-level sources are sometimes the most appropriate citation when they address a narrow question that higher-level guidance doesn’t cover directly — for example, a specific experimental study on clock-monitoring behavior, where no clinical guideline speaks to that mechanism specifically.

How internal links and Related Reading are chosen

Links to other articles are added where a topic is genuinely relevant to what the reader is currently reading — not for their own sake. Related Reading recommendations are chosen editorially, prioritizing the articles most likely to be a useful next step from the one you’re on, rather than generated automatically from publish date.

How updates are handled

Articles can be updated when clinical guidance changes, when a citation needs correcting, or when a section needs clarifying. See our Corrections Policy for how we handle errors specifically.

Not every article on this site has undergone independent medical review by a clinician. Our Medical Review Policy explains exactly what that distinction means and how it’s indicated when it applies.

This site is an educational resource. It does not provide diagnosis or treatment and is not a substitute for care from a qualified clinician.