Editorial Guidelines & Process

Last Updated: August 17, 2025

Editorial Mission Statement

SupplementCrew is dedicated to providing consumers with accurate, unbiased, and evidence-based information about dietary supplements. Our editorial process ensures that every piece of content meets the highest standards of scientific rigor, journalistic integrity, and reader value.

Editorial Team Structure

Editorial Leadership

- Editor-in-Chief: Oversight of all editorial content and policy

- Senior Health Editor: Medical and scientific content review

- Research Director: Fact-checking and source verification

- Content Quality Manager: Style consistency and publication standards

Expert Contributors

- Dr. Sarah Clayton, PhD: Nutritional Science and Metabolic Health

- Dr. Michael Torres, PharmD: Pharmacology and Drug Interactions

- Guest Experts: Specialized consultants for specific supplement categories

Content Creation Process

1. Topic Selection and Research Planning

#### Market Research

- Trending Supplements: Analysis of consumer interest and search trends

- Scientific Developments: New research in supplement effectiveness

- Safety Alerts: FDA warnings or emerging safety concerns

- Reader Requests: Community-driven content suggestions

#### Initial Research Framework

- Literature Review: Comprehensive analysis of existing research

- Source Identification: Compilation of primary and secondary sources

- Expert Consultation: Identification of specialists for complex topics

- Timeline Development: Realistic publication schedules for thorough review

2. Research and Information Gathering

#### Primary Source Requirements

- Peer-Reviewed Studies: Minimum of 5 relevant studies for major claims

- Government Resources: FDA, NIH, and international health agency data

- Clinical Trial Data: Direct access to clinical trial registries and results

- Manufacturer Documentation: Official product specifications and testing data

#### Research Documentation

- Source Tracking: Detailed citation system for all information sources

- Evidence Quality Rating: Assessment of study methodology and reliability

- Conflict of Interest Review: Evaluation of funding sources and potential bias

- Date Verification: Ensuring information currency and relevance

3. Content Development Standards

#### Writing Guidelines

Scientific Accuracy

- All health claims must be supported by peer-reviewed evidence

- Statistical information presented with appropriate context and limitations

- Clear distinction between correlation and causation

- Proper interpretation of study results and effect sizes

Clarity and Accessibility

- Technical terms explained in plain language

- Complex concepts broken down into understandable components

- Use of analogies and examples to illustrate difficult concepts

- Glossary integration for specialized terminology

Balanced Presentation

- Objective presentation of both benefits and risks

- Discussion of limitations and gaps in research

- Multiple perspectives included when scientific consensus is lacking

- Clear separation of evidence-based facts from editorial opinions

#### Content Structure Requirements

Introduction Standards

- Clear problem statement or health concern addressed

- Brief overview of supplement category or specific product

- Explanation of review methodology and criteria

- Summary of key findings and recommendations

Body Content Organization

- Logical flow from background to detailed analysis

- Systematic evaluation using our 4-criteria framework

- Evidence presentation with clear source citations

- Risk-benefit analysis with contextual information

Conclusion Guidelines

- Summary of key findings without introducing new information

- Clear recommendation based on evidence review

- Appropriate caveats and limitations acknowledgment

- Guidance for reader next steps and professional consultation

4. Editorial Review Process

#### Stage 1: Initial Draft Review

- Content Accuracy: Verification of all factual claims and statistics

- Source Validation: Confirmation of citation accuracy and accessibility

- Structure Assessment: Evaluation of logical flow and organization

- Preliminary Fact-Check: Initial verification of key claims

#### Stage 2: Expert Review

- Medical Accuracy: Review by qualified healthcare professionals

- Scientific Validity: Assessment of research interpretation and conclusions

- Safety Evaluation: Comprehensive risk assessment and warning identification

- Professional Consultation: Input from relevant specialists when needed

#### Stage 3: Editorial Polish

- Style Consistency: Application of house style and formatting standards

- Readability Optimization: Sentence structure and clarity improvements

- SEO Integration: Keyword optimization without compromising content quality

- Visual Enhancement: Integration of charts, graphs, and supporting images

#### Stage 4: Final Quality Assurance

- Comprehensive Fact-Check: Line-by-line verification of all claims

- Legal Review: Compliance with health content regulations and disclaimers

- Plagiarism Check: Verification of original content and proper attribution

- Final Approval: Senior editor sign-off before publication

Quality Control Standards

Accuracy Verification

#### Multi-Source Confirmation

- Primary Source Requirement: Direct access to original research when possible

- Cross-Reference Validation: Confirmation across multiple independent sources

- Expert Verification: Professional review of complex or controversial claims

- Update Protocols: Regular review and updating of published content

#### Error Prevention

- Checklist Systems: Standardized verification procedures for all content

- Double-Review Process: Multiple reviewers for critical health information

- Reference Management: Systematic organization and verification of all sources

- Version Control: Tracking of all edits and revisions throughout process

Editorial Integrity

#### Independence Standards

- No Manufacturer Influence: Content decisions free from commercial pressure

- Transparent Relationships: Clear disclosure of all business relationships

- Unbiased Evaluation: Consistent application of review criteria

- Editorial Firewall: Separation of editorial and business operations

#### Conflict of Interest Management

- Financial Disclosure: Declaration of any financial interests in reviewed products

- Professional Relationships: Transparency about advisory or consulting roles

- Gift Policy: Strict limitations on acceptance of products or services

- Recusal Procedures: Clear process for removing conflicts from review process

Publication Standards

Content Categories

#### Primary Reviews

- Comprehensive Product Reviews: Full evaluation using 4-criteria system

- Ingredient Analysis: Deep-dive examination of specific compounds

- Comparison Articles: Side-by-side evaluation of similar products

- Category Guides: Overview of entire supplement categories

#### Supporting Content

- Research Updates: Coverage of new scientific developments

- Safety Alerts: Rapid response to emerging safety concerns

- Educational Articles: Background information on health topics

- Methodology Explanations: Transparency about our review process

Publication Timeline

#### Standard Review Articles

- Research Phase: 2-3 weeks for comprehensive literature review

- Writing Phase: 1-2 weeks for initial draft completion

- Review Process: 1-2 weeks for multi-stage editorial review

- Publication Preparation: 3-5 days for final quality assurance

#### Urgent Updates

- Safety Alerts: 24-48 hours for critical safety information

- Breaking Research: 3-5 days for significant scientific developments

- Product Recalls: Immediate response with preliminary information

- Correction Updates: Same-day publication for verified errors

Post-Publication Monitoring

Content Maintenance

#### Regular Review Cycles

- Quarterly Updates: Review of all major articles every 3 months

- Annual Comprehensive Review: Complete evaluation of all content annually

- Trigger-Based Updates: Immediate review when new research emerges

- Reader Feedback Integration: Community input incorporated into updates

#### Accuracy Monitoring

- Error Reporting System: Clear process for readers to report potential issues

- Correction Protocols: Standardized procedures for addressing identified errors

- Update Notifications: Clear marking of revisions and correction dates

- Archive Maintenance: Preservation of original content for transparency

Reader Engagement

#### Feedback Systems

- Comment Moderation: Professional response to reader questions and concerns

- Expert Q&A: Regular opportunities for reader interaction with specialists

- Survey Integration: Reader satisfaction and content effectiveness measurement

- Community Building: Fostering educated discussion about supplement topics

#### Educational Outreach

- Webinar Series: Regular educational sessions on supplement topics

- Newsletter Content: Curated health information for subscribers

- Social Media Education: Evidence-based content for social platforms

- Professional Collaboration: Partnerships with healthcare organizations

Ethical Guidelines

Reader-First Principle

All editorial decisions prioritize reader benefit over commercial considerations. Our primary obligation is to provide accurate, helpful information that enables informed health decisions.

Scientific Integrity

We maintain unwavering commitment to evidence-based content, even when research contradicts popular beliefs or commercial interests.

Transparency Commitment

We provide clear information about our review methodology, funding sources, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Continuous Improvement

We regularly evaluate and improve our editorial processes based on reader feedback, industry best practices, and emerging scientific standards.

Contact Editorial Team

Questions about our editorial process, suggestions for content improvement, or concerns about published content can be directed to our editorial team through our contact page.

---

Our editorial guidelines ensure that every piece of content meets the highest standards of accuracy, integrity, and reader value in the supplement information industry.