Editorial policy

Evidence and sourcing

We prefer primary research, systematic reviews, regulators, clinical guidance and recognised professional bodies. A manufacturer may establish what is printed on its pack, but not whether a clinical claim is true. Sources receive stable identifiers and enough bibliographic detail to be independently inspected.

We separate the source’s finding from our judgement. Study design, population, duration, formulation and uncertainty should remain visible when they materially affect interpretation.

Authorship and review

Every article has a visible author. A reviewer appears only after identity, credentials and scope are verified. Organisational authorship is labelled as such and does not imply a medical qualification.

Pages display publication, modification and last-reviewed dates. Medical-review status is explicit.

Product data

Product identity, formula version and merchant listing are separate records. Formula details show a verification date or an unknown state. We do not scrape retailer prices, ratings, reviews or availability.

Commercial independence

Affiliate relationships do not change our evidence standard or guarantee coverage. Sponsored placement, if introduced, will be labelled and kept separate from editorial selection.

Corrections

Readers and brands may use the formula corrections and evidence pathway. Material corrections update the modified date and will be recorded with a concise explanation. Formula changes create a new version record instead of silently erasing history. Submissions are independently assessed; commercial and affiliate relationships do not determine the accepted formula record.