Editorial policy

This page describes how articles on Nutreha are researched, written, checked and corrected. It is a description of what we actually do, and we would like to be held to it.

Sourcing

Every health claim is sourced. We prefer, in this order: systematic reviews and meta-analyses; randomised controlled trials; large prospective cohort studies; and guidance from national bodies such as the NHS, the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, and the EFSA. A single small study is reported as a single small study.

No article is published with fewer than two cited sources. Sources are listed at the foot of the article, with the publisher named, so you can check them yourself.

Review

Articles making clinical or dietary claims are reviewed before publication by someone with relevant qualifications. The reviewer's name and the review date appear in the article's facts panel. An article that has not been reviewed says so in that panel rather than leaving the space blank.

Updating

Nutrition evidence moves. Every article is scheduled for review at least every eighteen months, and sooner if significant new evidence appears or guidance changes. The last-reviewed date is shown on every article. When we make a substantive change, we say what changed.

Corrections

If an article is wrong, we correct it and note the correction on the article rather than quietly editing it. Report an error through the contact page; we aim to respond within five working days.

Independence and funding

Reviews are written independently. We buy the products we review, or state plainly when a sample was provided. We do not accept payment for a favourable review, we do not let a brand see a review before publication, and any affiliate relationship is disclosed on the article itself.

AI use

Articles are written and edited by people. We do not publish generated text as editorial content. Where a tool assists with research or structure, a human author is still responsible for every claim and every source.