People come to Nutrition Reviews to make decisions about products they'll put in their bodies. These standards explain how we earn that trust and keep it. They apply to everything we publish, including product reviews, scores, articles and our newsletter.
Sourcing standards
We base our conclusions on the best available evidence, and we show where it came from.
- Research. We give the most weight to systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials in humans, followed by position stands and guidance from expert and government bodies such as the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, the FDA and the International Society of Sports Nutrition. We treat observational studies as suggestive rather than conclusive, and animal or lab studies as preliminary.
- Product facts. Ingredients, doses, serving sizes, allergens and certifications come from primary sources: the label or the brand's official product page, major retailer listings, the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database and certifiers' own databases. If we can't verify a detail, we leave it out rather than guess.
- Context. We point out when a study was small or short, used a different dose or form than the product, or was funded by a company with a stake in the result.
- What doesn't count as evidence. Brand marketing, press releases, testimonials and before-and-after photos are not evidence that a product works. Buyer reviews and creator videos inform our assessment of taste, mixability and tolerability, never of efficacy.
- Showing our work. Our articles include numbered references, and we link to key sources wherever practical so you can check them yourself.
Independence
- Brands can't pay to be listed, reviewed, ranked or scored. We don't sell sponsored reviews, advertorials or "featured" placements.
- Brands don't see our reviews before publication and can't approve, edit or veto them.
- We don't charge for awards, badges or "best of" mentions.
- We don't accept gifts, travel or other perks in exchange for coverage.
- No supplement brand, manufacturer or retailer owns Nutrition Reviews or directs our editorial decisions.
Affiliate relationships and scores
We earn commissions when readers buy through some of our links, as explained in our Affiliate Disclosure. To keep that from influencing our judgment:
- Commission rates are not an input to our scoring rubric, which is published in full in How We Review & Score.
- We review and score products whether or not we can earn a commission on them.
- We publish low scores for products we could profit from, and we don't soften or remove a review because a product sells well or pays well.
- A product's "Where to buy" links have no effect on its score.
Conflicts of interest
Everyone who contributes to Nutrition Reviews must disclose any relationship that could reasonably be seen as affecting their work, such as employment by, consulting for or a significant financial interest in a supplement company or retailer. Anyone with a conflict doesn't review or score that company's products. When a relationship is relevant to a piece of content, we disclose it on that page.
If a brand ever provides us with a free product, we say so in the review. A free product never obligates us to cover it or to say anything positive about it.
How we use AI
We use AI tools to help with research and drafting, for example to find and organize sources, summarize studies, transcribe label information and prepare first drafts. AI tools can make mistakes, so we follow these rules:
- A human editor reviews AI-assisted content before it's published, checks facts, doses and figures against the original sources, and is accountable for the final result.
- Every score follows our published rubric and is approved by an editor.
- We never use AI to invent reviews, testimonials, quotes, credentials, studies or personal experiences.
- Some illustrative images, such as article cover images, may be created with AI image tools. We don't use AI-generated images to depict real products or results.
Health and medical claims
What we publish can affect people's health, so our health content is held to a high bar.
- No disease claims. Under U.S. law, claims that a product diagnoses, treats, cures or prevents a disease are generally reserved for drugs. We don't describe supplements that way, and we point it out when a brand does.
- Evidence-appropriate language. We say "research suggests" or "may support" when that's what the evidence shows, and we say plainly when evidence is weak, mixed or missing.
- Brand claims get checked, not repeated. When marketing goes beyond the evidence, we say so, and it counts against the product's transparency score.
- Safety comes first. We flag stimulant content, known interactions, common allergens and groups who should avoid a product or talk to a clinician first.
- No personal medical advice. We explain the evidence; we don't diagnose, prescribe or tell individuals what to take. See our Medical Disclaimer.
Reviews, ratings and videos
- We summarize patterns across buyer reviews rather than cherry-picking the best or worst.
- We never write, buy or solicit fake reviews or testimonials, and we don't suppress negative feedback.
- We choose creator videos using the criteria in How We Review & Score, label their sentiment honestly and never accept payment to feature one.
Corrections policy
We work hard to get things right, and when we don't, we fix it quickly and openly.
- Reporting an error. Tell us through our contact page. Include the page, what you believe is wrong and, if possible, a source.
- How we respond. We review every report, usually reply within 2–3 business days, and correct confirmed errors promptly.
- How corrections appear. For significant errors, such as a wrong dose, ingredient, certification, safety detail or score, we fix the page and add a note explaining what changed and when. Minor fixes, like typos or broken links, are made without a note.
- Updates versus corrections. When a score changes because the product or the evidence has changed, rather than because we made a mistake, we label the change as an update.
- Requests from brands. We correct documented factual errors, for example when a brand provides an updated label, a current certificate or a certificate of analysis. We don't change opinions or scores simply because a brand disagrees with them.
Questions
If you have a question about these standards or a concern about something we've published, please contact us.