Editorial standards — how we research, write, and stay honest

Last updated: June 12, 2026

Whether you’re reading a product review, a practical guide, or a piece covering new wellness research, you’re making health decisions based on what you find. You deserve to know how we arrived at our conclusions, not just that we did. This page explains the editorial standards and principles that govern every piece of content we publish — and, separately, our policy on sponsored content and how we keep paid placements entirely separate from our independent editorial work.

What our research involves

Our reviews are research-based. We compare published specifications, third-party test reports, peer-reviewed research, and aggregated user reviews to identify the best picks in each category. Where independent lab data exists, we use it. Where clinical studies exist, we read them. Where only user feedback and manufacturer documentation exist, we say so.

Our editorial principles

  1. Science first: We base recommendations on published clinical research, not marketing claims. We distinguish clearly between strong evidence, moderate evidence, and limited or preliminary evidence.
  2. Independence: Editorial decisions are made separately from affiliate partnerships. Ratings and recommendations come from our analysis, not commercial relationships.
  3. Transparency: We’re open about our methodology, scoring criteria, and any limitations in our research. If our evidence base is thin, we say so.
  4. Honesty: Every product has trade-offs. We present both strengths and weaknesses, and we don’t paper over weaknesses to make a product look better than it is.
  5. Accuracy: We cross-check ingredient lists, dosages, pricing, and specifications against vendor documentation and third-party sources before publishing.

How we evaluate supplements

Supplement reviews follow a structured research framework:

1. Ingredient analysis

  • Does the product fully disclose all ingredients and their exact dosages? Proprietary blends score negatively.
  • Are ingredients supported by peer-reviewed human clinical studies?
  • Are ingredients dosed at levels matching effective ranges used in clinical research?
  • Does the ingredient combination make scientific sense?

2. Manufacturing quality

  • GMP certification
  • Third-party testing for purity and contaminants
  • Clean label standards (no artificial fillers, allergens)

3. Value assessment

  • Price per serving relative to competitors
  • Cost compared to buying ingredients individually
  • Subscription and bundle discounts

4. User experience signals

  • Reported taste and mixability based on aggregate user feedback (for powders)
  • Capsule count and serving convenience
  • Aggregate long-term user reports

How we evaluate wellness devices

Device reviews focus on measurable performance factors:

  • Technical specifications: wavelength accuracy, irradiance (power output), LED quality
  • Build quality: materials, heat management, safety certifications
  • Coverage and effectiveness: treatment area, session time, user-reported outcomes from aggregated reviews
  • Value: price relative to performance compared to competitors
  • Warranty and support: manufacturer backing and customer service quality

Scoring system

Each product is scored on a 10-point scale across multiple criteria. Overall ratings are weighted averages based on what matters most in that product category. We explain our scoring rationale in every review.

Evidence levels

When we discuss scientific evidence for ingredients or treatments, we use a consistent framework:

  • Strong evidence: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with consistent results
  • Moderate evidence: Some RCTs or strong observational studies
  • Limited evidence: Preliminary research, animal studies, or in-vitro research only
  • Insufficient evidence: Not enough research to draw conclusions

Handling affiliate relationships

  • Editorial decisions are made independently from commercial partnerships
  • Commission structures never factor into product ratings
  • We include non-affiliate products when they belong among the best options

Standards for guides and explainers

Our practical guides and explainers follow the same independence and accuracy standards as our product reviews:

  • Sourcing: Claims are drawn from peer-reviewed research, established clinical guidelines, and primary sources. We do not publish claims supported only by marketing materials.
  • Evidence hedging: Where evidence is preliminary, contested, or limited to animal or in-vitro research, we say so explicitly. We use the same evidence-level framework as our product reviews.
  • No false firsthand claims: We do not claim to have personally performed protocols, followed regimens, or tested approaches unless we have genuinely done so.
  • Corrections: Guide content is subject to the same corrections policy as reviews. If new research supersedes a recommendation, we update and note the change.

Standards for news and research coverage

When we cover new research, product launches, or wellness industry developments:

  • Primary sources: We link to the original study, press release, or official announcement — not to a second-hand summary.
  • Context: A single study does not overturn established evidence. We place new findings in context of the existing research landscape.
  • No embargoed paid coverage: We do not accept payment to cover a product launch or study. News coverage is editorially independent.
  • Corrections: If a news piece contains a factual error, we correct it promptly and note the change inline.

Updates and corrections

  • We re-evaluate products periodically for formulation changes, pricing updates, and new research
  • Reader-reported corrections are investigated and addressed promptly
  • Substantive post-publication changes are noted at the bottom of the article

Spot an error? Contact us at [email protected].