Editorial Policy

Editorial Policy Megri.co.uk

Last updated: 28 August 2026

1. Our editorial purpose

Megri.co.uk is a free-to-access online publication available at https://www.megri.co.uk. We publish articles, news, explainers, guides, interviews, reviews, comparisons, listicles and other informational content for readers in the United Kingdom and internationally.

Our aim is to produce content that is useful, understandable, appropriately researched and transparent about its sources and commercial context. This policy explains the standards we expect from our editors, writers and contributors and how readers can raise concerns about published material.

2. Scope

This policy applies to editorial material published by Megri.co.uk, including:

  • staff-written and commissioned articles;
  • guest contributions;
  • interviews and expert commentary;
  • reviews, comparisons, ratings and rankings;
  • news, analysis and opinion;
  • images, graphics, video and other media;
  • sponsored and affiliate-supported material; and
  • content developed with the assistance of artificial-intelligence tools.

Advertising supplied and controlled by an advertiser is subject to applicable advertising rules and our commercial-content standards. User comments and other submissions may also be governed by the Website Terms and Conditions.

3. Core editorial principles

Our editorial work is guided by the following principles:

  • Accuracy: take reasonable care not to publish materially inaccurate or misleading information.
  • Fairness: represent relevant facts and viewpoints fairly and avoid distorting their meaning.
  • Independence: distinguish editorial judgement from advertising and improper commercial influence.
  • Transparency: identify authorship, material sources, conflicts and commercial relationships where relevant.
  • Accountability: consider substantiated concerns and correct significant errors appropriately.
  • Originality: respect copyright, attribution and the work of other creators.
  • Proportionality: apply stronger verification and review to claims carrying greater potential for harm.
  • Human responsibility: editors remain responsible for publication decisions, including when technology assists the work.

4. Editorial responsibility

The editor responsible for an article should ensure that it receives review proportionate to its subject, complexity, urgency and potential impact.

Writers and contributors are expected to:

  • distinguish fact from opinion, allegation and prediction;
  • provide reliable supporting sources for material claims;
  • disclose relevant personal or commercial interests;
  • use quotations accurately and in context;
  • avoid plagiarism, fabrication and deceptive practices;
  • declare the use of third-party or AI-generated material where requested; and
  • cooperate with reasonable fact-checking and correction requests.

Editors may revise headlines, structure, wording, links, images and formatting for clarity, accuracy, house style, accessibility, search presentation or legal reasons. Editing must not materially misrepresent an author’s meaning.

5. Research, sourcing and verification

The level of verification should reflect the seriousness of the claim. Higher-risk claims may require multiple sources, primary documents, direct confirmation, expert review or an opportunity for the subject to respond.

Where reasonably available, we prefer:

  • legislation, regulators and official public bodies;
  • original research, filings, reports and datasets;
  • direct statements from the relevant person or organisation;
  • recognised academic or professional sources; and
  • reputable reporting that clearly identifies its evidence.

Secondary sources may provide useful context, but they should not be presented as primary evidence. Social-media posts, user comments, anonymous claims, AI-generated summaries and search-result snippets should not be treated as verified merely because they are publicly available.

Statistics, survey results and research claims should, where relevant, identify the source, publication date, sample, material limitations and original context. Links should lead as closely as practical to the source supporting the claim.

6. Anonymous and confidential sources

Anonymous sources may be used where they provide information in the public interest and face a credible reason for confidentiality. Editors should, where practicable, know the source’s identity, assess their access to the information, consider their motives and seek corroboration.

We aim to describe an unnamed source with enough context for readers to assess credibility without exposing the source. Confidentiality promises must not be made casually. Information identifying a protected source should be restricted to those who need it and handled securely.

Legal obligations or court orders may affect confidentiality. A source requiring a formal legal guarantee should obtain independent legal advice.

7. Accuracy, context and headlines

Headlines, summaries, captions, social posts, thumbnails and metadata should accurately reflect the underlying content. They must not materially exaggerate, omit decisive context or present speculation as established fact merely to attract attention.

We will take reasonable care to:

  • verify names, dates, figures, quotations and material factual assertions;
  • distinguish confirmed facts from allegations or developing information;
  • identify uncertainty and meaningful limitations;
  • attribute disputed claims appropriately;
  • update time-sensitive information when an update is editorially warranted; and
  • avoid presenting old events or material as new without clear context.

Articles may evolve as new information becomes available. Material updates should be dated or explained when the change is significant to a reader’s understanding.

8. Fairness and the opportunity to respond

When an article makes a serious adverse allegation about an identifiable person or organisation, we will normally consider whether fairness requires contacting the subject before publication.

A request for comment should provide enough information to allow a meaningful response and, where practical, a reasonable deadline reflecting the urgency and complexity of the story. If no response is received, the article may state that the subject was contacted or did not respond.

Not every criticism, review or routine factual reference requires advance contact. The decision depends on the seriousness, evidence, public interest, urgency and risk of harm.

Responses should be represented fairly, although they need not be reproduced in full. We may update an article after publication to include a material response.

9. Opinion, analysis and contributed content

Opinion and analysis should be distinguishable from factual reporting. Strong viewpoints are permitted, but factual claims within opinion pieces remain subject to reasonable accuracy standards.

Guest contributors must disclose relevant financial, professional, political or personal interests. Publication of a contribution does not mean that Megri.co.uk endorses every view expressed.

We may reject, edit, postpone or withdraw contributed material where it does not meet our standards, creates an undisclosed conflict, cannot be adequately verified or presents an unacceptable legal or ethical risk.

10. Reviews, rankings, comparisons and listicles

Reviews and rankings should help readers make informed choices. The methodology may vary by subject, but the basis of assessment should be explained within the article or in an accessible methodology statement where appropriate.

Relevant factors may include:

  • features and scope;
  • quality, usability or performance;
  • price and overall value;
  • availability and customer support;
  • professional experience, demonstrations or testing;
  • documentation and verifiable evidence;
  • reputation and genuine user feedback;
  • suitability for the identified audience; and
  • limitations, risks and material trade-offs.

We do not knowingly publish, purchase, commission or facilitate fake reviews. We do not knowingly conceal an incentive provided for a review. A gift, complimentary service, affiliate arrangement, sponsorship or other benefit must be disclosed where it may affect how readers understand the content.

Negative reviews must not be suppressed merely because they are unfavourable. Rankings must not misrepresent the underlying evidence, omit decisive qualification criteria or claim testing that did not occur.

A company may provide information, samples or access, but this does not guarantee inclusion, a favourable assessment or a particular ranking. Where a paying partner controls the content or outcome, the material must be treated and labelled as advertising rather than independent editorial.

11. Commercial influence, advertising and affiliate content

Editorial and commercial functions should remain appropriately separated. Advertisers, sponsors and affiliate partners must not be allowed to disguise marketing material as independent editorial content.

Where payment or another commercial arrangement makes material an advertisement or advertorial, it should carry a clear and prominent label such as Advertisement, Ad, Sponsored or Advertorial. The disclosure should appear before or at the beginning of the material, not only on a separate policy page.

Affiliate content should disclose the commercial relationship clearly before or near the relevant links where required. Vague terms that readers may not understand as advertising should not be relied upon by themselves.

Commercial relationships may inform topic selection, but they must not justify false claims, fabricated experience, concealed incentives or misleading presentation. Sponsored and affiliate material remains subject to appropriate accuracy, substantiation and legal review.

12. Conflicts of interest

Authors, editors and reviewers should disclose interests that could reasonably call their independence into question. These may include:

  • employment, consultancy or ownership relationships;
  • payment, gifts, discounts, travel or hospitality;
  • affiliate or referral arrangements;
  • close personal or family relationships;
  • significant financial interests; and
  • active involvement in the subject being covered.

Depending on the circumstances, the conflict may be disclosed to readers, managed through additional review, assigned to another writer or treated as a reason not to publish.

13. Artificial intelligence

Artificial-intelligence tools may assist limited parts of our workflow, such as research support, transcription, translation, brainstorming, editing, formatting or image development.

AI-generated output is not treated as a verified source. Material intended for publication should receive proportionate human review for:

  • factual accuracy and currentness;
  • invented claims, quotations, sources or citations;
  • originality, copyright and attribution;
  • bias, discrimination and harmful assumptions;
  • privacy, confidentiality and source protection;
  • misleading images or representations; and
  • compliance with our editorial standards.

An editor or identified contributor remains responsible for the published work. We should disclose AI generation or material alteration when omitting that fact could mislead readers about the origin, authenticity or evidential value of the content.

Confidential source material, unpublished personal information and legally privileged material must not be entered into an AI service unless the service and proposed use have been specifically approved following privacy, confidentiality, security and contractual assessment.

14. Copyright, plagiarism and attribution

We respect copyright and other intellectual-property rights. Writers must not copy protected material merely because it is available online.

Quotations must be proportionate, accurate and attributed. Images, graphics, videos and other media must be original, licensed or used under a valid legal basis. Credits should be provided where required.

Plagiarism, fabricated attribution and deliberate removal of ownership information are prohibited. Suspected infringement will be investigated, and material may be corrected, replaced or removed.

Copyright concerns may be reported to [email protected] with the article URL, identification of the material, evidence of ownership or authority and the action requested.

15. Privacy, intrusion and personal information

Editorial interest does not automatically override privacy. Before publishing private or sensitive information, editors should consider:

  • whether the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;
  • the source and method by which the information was obtained;
  • the necessity and proportionality of publication;
  • potential harm to the individual or others;
  • whether consent has been obtained;
  • the public interest; and
  • applicable data-protection and other legal requirements.

Home addresses, contact information, identification documents, medical details and other sensitive material should not be published without a clear editorial and lawful justification. We should remove or obscure unnecessary personal information.

16. Children and vulnerable people

The welfare and privacy of children require particular care. We will consider age, maturity, consent, identifiability, potential harm and whether publication is genuinely necessary.

Parental or guardian consent may be appropriate but is not, by itself, decisive in every case. We will not knowingly publish information that unlawfully identifies a child in protected legal proceedings.

When covering grief, trauma, suicide, abuse, illness or other distressing subjects, writers should avoid unnecessary intrusion, sensational detail and language likely to increase harm. Seek specialist legal or editorial review where the risk is significant.

17. Discrimination and respectful language

We do not tolerate content that promotes unlawful discrimination, hatred or harassment. References to race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, illness, age, nationality or other personal characteristics should be included only where genuinely relevant and expressed accurately and responsibly.

Criticism of ideas, institutions, conduct or public policy may be legitimate. It should not be confused with gratuitous or prejudicial treatment of an individual based on an irrelevant characteristic.

18. Images, captions and altered media

Images and captions must not materially misrepresent the subject or event. Archive, stock, staged, illustrative, AI-generated or materially altered images should be identified where the context would otherwise mislead readers.

Routine adjustments such as cropping, colour correction or resizing are acceptable where they do not change the editorial meaning. Material alteration that creates or removes significant content must be clearly justified and disclosed.

Graphic or distressing imagery should be used only where there is sufficient editorial justification, with warnings or restricted presentation where appropriate.

19. Corrections, updates and removals

We aim to correct significant factual errors promptly and with appropriate prominence. The response will depend on the nature and seriousness of the issue and may include:

  • correcting text, headlines, captions or metadata;
  • adding clarification or missing context;
  • adding an editor’s note or correction notice;
  • updating an article to reflect later developments;
  • replacing media or repairing links; or
  • removing material where correction would not adequately address the problem.

Minor spelling, grammar, formatting and style changes may be made without a notice where they do not alter meaning. Material corrections should ordinarily explain what changed. Removal is exceptional and may not be appropriate where the public record, editorial integrity or legal preservation requires continued availability.

Our detailed procedure should be set out in a separate Corrections Policy.

20. Complaints

Readers may report a material inaccuracy, undisclosed commercial relationship, copyright concern, privacy issue or other possible breach of this policy.

Please provide:

  • your full name and contact details;
  • the article title and exact URL;
  • the specific words, image or material concerned;
  • the reason you believe it breaches this policy;
  • reliable supporting evidence; and
  • the correction or other outcome requested.

Send complaints to [email protected] or write to:

Legal Adviser, Megri.co.uk
133 Creek Road
Greenwich
London SE8 3BU
United Kingdom

Telephone: 07443 813 186

We will acknowledge and assess sufficiently detailed, good-faith complaints. We may request further information, contact the author or subject, consult source material, seek specialist advice or temporarily restrict content while reviewing a serious concern.

We will communicate the outcome or next appropriate step within a reasonable period, taking account of complexity and urgency. A complaint does not guarantee amendment or removal.

21. Independence and regulatory status

This policy is Megri.co.uk’s own editorial standards framework. Reference to principles found in professional publishing guidance does not, by itself, mean that Megri.co.uk is a member of or regulated by any particular press organisation.

We will not display a regulator’s logo, membership claim or complaints route unless the relevant status has been verified and remains current.

22. Review of this policy

We may update this policy when our publishing practices, legal responsibilities or industry standards change. The current version will be published on this page with a revised “Last updated” date.

Questions about this policy may be sent to [email protected].

Our Policies