Editorial policy
Last updated
Evidence standards
A claim about health needs a source a reader can inspect. We prefer primary material: the paper, the regulator, the manufacturer’s own specification, or official guidance. A blog post that cites none of those is not a source.
We separate what a study reports from what a headline would like it to mean. Small studies, animal studies and early findings stay described as such.
Sources
Prices and labels carry a date and a named source.
Expert review
Some pages name a medical or scientific reviewer as well as the author. The byline says who reviewed it and when. We do not invent a reviewer.
A reviewer looks at whether the page fairly represents the evidence. They do not underwrite a product, and their name is not a testimonial.
No fabricated testing or reviews
We do not invent tests, star ratings, prices, quotations, experts or reader experiences. A page that looks like a review must come from one of the three methods on the How we review page.
We do not publish unreviewed machine-generated articles. Tools may help an editor organize notes. A named person is accountable for what goes out, and the notes have to survive the evidence rules above.
Corrections
If we get something wrong, we correct the page and log the change. The corrections page explains how to tell us and how the log works.
Advertising and editorial
Advertisers and affiliate partners do not approve reviews. A sponsorship, when one exists, will be labeled as advertising. It will not be dressed up as a staff review.