These are the rules we hold ourselves to. They exist so you can judge our work against something specific rather than taking our independence on trust.
Evidence first
Every factual claim traces back to a source we can name. Where research exists, we cite it. Where it does not, we say so rather than filling the gap with confident language.
We prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses to single studies, human trials to animal and cell studies, and long follow-up to short. When only weak evidence exists, the article says the evidence is weak — it does not quietly upgrade it.
Numbers, not adjectives
“Significantly improves” tells you nothing useful. We report the size of an effect, the dose it was seen at, and the population it was measured in. A supplement that raises a marker by four percent in trained men under thirty is not the same finding as one that halves risk in the general population, and we do not write them the same way.
Two things we check every time. Dose: a study showing an effect at 3 g per day does not support a product delivering 500 mg, and front-of-pack figures usually describe the compound rather than the active element — 1800 mg of magnesium glycinate is not 1800 mg of magnesium. Population: an effect found in deficient adults rarely transfers to people who are not deficient, and the largest benefits almost always appear in those starting from the lowest point.
Products are read label-first
For supplement reviews, the sequence is fixed. We read the ingredients panel before the marketing copy. We convert front-of-pack figures into the actual quantity of the active compound. We check the form of that compound, because form determines absorption — magnesium oxide and magnesium glycinate behave differently in the gut, and iron bisglycinate is gentler than ferrous sulphate but often dosed lower. Only then do we look at what the brand claims.
The score out of ten reflects dose adequacy, label honesty and value. These are weighted independently, which is why a cheap product with a misleading label can score below an expensive one that tells the truth.
No paid placement
We do not sell reviews, review positions, or scores. We do not use affiliate links. Brands do not see reviews before publication and cannot request changes after it. No brand has editorial input into any article on this site.
If we ever introduce advertising or affiliate arrangements, they will be labelled on the page where they appear, and this section will be rewritten to describe them precisely. A policy that quietly stops being true is worse than no policy.
Conflicts of interest
Where a writer or the publication has any commercial relationship relevant to what is being covered, it is disclosed on the article itself, not buried here. Disclosure appears above the article body, where it can be read before the content rather than after.
Corrections
We correct errors openly. Substantive corrections are noted on the article with the date and what changed. We do not silently edit a claim and leave the page looking as though it always said the new thing. Details are on our corrections page.
Health boundaries
We publish general information, not individual medical advice. We do not tell readers to start, stop or change a medication. We do not diagnose. Where a topic touches something that genuinely needs a clinician — chest pain, pregnancy, drug interactions, mental health — the article says so plainly rather than offering a workaround.
Sources and links
We link to the primary source where one is publicly accessible, not to another outlet’s summary of it. Where a study sits behind a paywall, we name it fully enough that you can find it.
Who is accountable
Every article carries an author name. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team, and the team is answerable for them. If you believe something we published is wrong, misleading or unfair, tell us — see corrections.