Editorial Standards & Methodology

1. Sourcing — where our information comes from

Every product review draws from three categories of source material:

• Primary product information — the actual supplement facts panel, official manufacturer site, and product label. We do not rely on marketing pages alone; the supplement facts panel is the ground truth for what's in any product.
• Peer-reviewed scientific literature — published clinical research on individual active ingredients. We cite established trials (AREDS, AREDS2, etc.) and aggregate findings from review articles where available.
• Customer feedback synthesis — patterns aggregated across multiple sources, never single fabricated testimonials.

When we don't have access to a primary source, we say so. We don't manufacture detail we can't verify.

2. Medical review

Vision-category content is reviewed for medical accuracy by Dr. Margaret Ellis, O.D. before publication. Her review specifically covers:

• Whether our descriptions of ingredient mechanisms accurately reflect the published literature
• Whether the doses we cite from clinical research are represented correctly and in context
• Whether we have adequately disclosed safety considerations and population restrictions
• Whether our claims fall within FDA-permitted structure-function language for dietary supplements

Editorial decisions — which products are ranked highest, what tone we take, which competitors we compare against — remain with the editorial team. The medical reviewer's role is accuracy verification, not editorial direction.

3. Compliance language standards

The U.S. FDA permits dietary supplements to make structure-function claims ("supports visual clarity") but prohibits disease claims ("treats macular degeneration"). We adhere strictly to structure-function language on all product pages. Specifically:

• We never claim a supplement "cures," "treats," "prevents," or "reverses" any named disease
• We use phrases like "supports healthy macular function" rather than "fixes age-related macular degeneration"
• We include the standard FDA disclaimer on every page that discusses supplements
• We disclose that any benefits described may vary by individual and are not guaranteed

4. Conflict of interest & affiliate disclosure

We earn revenue from affiliate commissions. We are transparent about this and follow the FTC's Endorsement Guides:

• Disclosure on every monetized page. Every page that contains an affiliate link includes a clearly visible affiliate disclosure at the top and bottom — not buried in the footer.
• No payment for placement. Manufacturers cannot pay us to be listed as our "top pick." Our rankings reflect our editorial team's assessment.
• Rate-card transparency. The affiliate commission rate we earn does not vary by how positively or negatively we review a product. We earn the same percentage whether we rate a product 3 stars or 5.
• No equity, no royalties, no exclusivity. We don't hold equity in any product we review. We don't have exclusive partnerships that would obligate us to promote any specific brand.
• Independent medical reviewer compensation. Our medical reviewer (Dr. Ellis) receives a flat consulting fee for review services, independent of which products we recommend or how they rank.

5. What we will not publish

To be specific about the lines we don't cross:

• Fabricated personal testimonials presented as real customer reviews
• Fake doctor endorsements or invented medical authorities
• Fake "as seen on" media-mention claims
• Fake scarcity tactics ("only 3 bottles left" when there are thousands)
• Before-and-after photos of individuals who didn't actually use the product
• Claims that a supplement cures, treats, or prevents any disease
• Reviews that hide negative aspects of a product to protect a commission
• Promotional content paid for by manufacturers and presented as editorial

6. Corrections policy

If we publish something inaccurate, we want to know. Our correction process:

1. Send a correction request to our contact page with a clear description of the issue and a source (where applicable).
2. We review every correction request. Verified errors are corrected within 5 business days.
3. Corrections are made directly to the page, and the "Last reviewed" date is updated to reflect the change.
4. Substantial corrections (changes to a product rating, removal of a claim) are noted at the bottom of the affected page.

We make corrections regardless of who requests them. A reader pointing out an error gets the same treatment as a manufacturer.

7. Update cadence

Supplements and their formulations change. Research evolves. Pricing shifts. We commit to:

• Reviewing each major product page at least quarterly for accuracy and freshness
• Updating pricing details whenever a manufacturer changes their pricing structure
• Updating ingredient information when a product reformulates
• Noting the most recent review date visibly on every page

8. Reader expectations & medical disclaimer

Our content is educational. It is not personalized medical advice. Three things readers should always do:

1. Consult your own healthcare provider before starting any new supplement, especially if you take prescription medication or have a diagnosed condition
2. Read the actual product label and verify the current ingredient list before purchase (formulations can change)
3. Treat all timeline and result expectations as ranges based on aggregated user reports, not personal guarantees

9. AI & LLM transparency

Our editorial team uses AI tools as part of our content production process — for research synthesis, fact-checking, and draft generation. Every published article is then edited, fact-checked, and approved by human editors before publication. Medical-category content is additionally reviewed by our medical reviewer. AI is a tool we use; it is not a substitute for editorial judgment or medical accuracy review.

We welcome AI/LLM crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) to index and cite our content. Our robots.txt explicitly allows these crawlers because our goal is to be the most accurate and trustworthy source we can be — in both human search and AI assistant results.

Questions about these standards?

We take editorial integrity seriously. If you have questions about any of these policies, or you've spotted something on our site that doesn't seem to meet them, please get in touch.