Editorial standards

Version 2.0 · Last updated: 2026-06-05

These standards govern every piece of editorial content published on VitaminDB — guides, comparison pages, brand reviews, deal write-ups, glossary entries, and FAQs. They exist so readers can trust what we publish, advertisers and rights holders can verify our independence, and search engines can score us correctly under Google’s YMYL (“Your Money or Your Life”) Quality Rater Guidelines and the E-E-A-T rubric (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). They align with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles where applicable.

Table of contents

1. 4-tier sourcing hierarchy
2. Fact-checking process
3. Review cycle and dating
4. Author credentials
5. Conflict of interest
6. Funding sources
7. AI usage disclosure
8. What we do not publish
9. Health claims policy
10. Headlines and standfirsts
11. Numbers, statistics, and rounding
12. Image sourcing and credit
13. Brand coverage and right of reply
14. Negative reviews
15. Corrections
16. Retractions
17. Editorial independence from advertisers
18. Newsroom diversity
19. Style guide
20. Contact

1. 4-tier sourcing hierarchy

Every factual claim is sourced. We prefer sources in this order:

1. Tier 1 — Primary literature. Peer-reviewed studies indexed on PubMed or Cochrane; EFSA scientific opinions; NIH Office of Dietary Supplements fact sheets; FDA guidance documents; EMA assessment reports; WHO position papers. Preference for systematic reviews and meta-analyses over single RCTs over observational studies.
2. Tier 2 — Independent labs and certifications. ConsumerLab, Labdoor, USP Verified, NSF, NSF Certified for Sport, Informed Sport, Informed Choice. Used for purity, potency, and contamination data, not efficacy claims.
3. Tier 3 — Evidence aggregators. Examine.com, UpToDate, NICE guidelines, BMJ Best Practice. Used as starting points and to triangulate, never as sole sources for novel claims.
4. Tier 4 — Manufacturer materials. Used only for product specifications (dose, form, serving size, ingredient list, allergens), never for efficacy claims.

Forum posts, social-media threads, influencer videos, and untested anecdotes are not sources. They may be referenced as cultural context but never as evidence. Wikipedia is a useful starting point for finding original sources but is not itself a source.

2. Fact-checking process

• Every dose, form, and price stated on a deal is verified against the merchant page at submission and re-checked by our price tracker on a regular schedule.
• Every health-related claim in a guide is checked against at least one Tier 1 source. Tier-1 references are linked inline; bare citations like “studies show” without a specific link are not acceptable.
• Statistics are dated and reproducible. The methodology and date of any cited dataset are surfaced where the statistic is used.
• Comparative claims (“X is more bioavailable than Y”) require either a direct head-to-head study or an explicit qualifier (“in vitro”, “animal model”, “limited data”, “weak evidence”).
• Cross-checking: at least two independent editors verify every Tier 1 claim before publication of a money page.
• Source archiving: external sources are archived to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine at the time of citation so future readers can verify what the source said at publication time.

3. Review cycle and dating

• Every guide carries a visible “Published” and “Last reviewed” date.
• Articles are reviewed at least once every 12 months, more frequently for fast-moving topics.
• When source landscape changes materially (new RCT, regulatory change, deaths attributed), we refresh sooner and note the change in the article footer.
• Reviewing without changing wording is OK; in that case the “Last reviewed” date advances and we record a no-change review in the article’s revision log.
• Schema.org reviewedBy and lastReviewed are emitted in JSON-LD on YMYL pages.

4. Author credentials

• Each editorial article has a named human author and, for medical-claim-bearing content, a named medical reviewer.
• Author bio pages list relevant credentials (e.g. MS Nutrition, RD, PharmD, MPH), professional affiliations, and a link to a verifiable external profile (institutional page, LinkedIn, ORCID, ResearchGate).
• Pseudonymous or AI “author personas” are prohibited.
• Freelance contributors are disclosed and bound by these editorial standards in writing.
• Contributor agreements include warranties of originality, source-checking, and conflict-of-interest disclosure.

5. Conflict of interest

• Editorial staff do not accept gifts, paid samples, paid trips, or honoraria from supplement brands. Unsolicited samples are returned or donated.
• Affiliate commission rates are excluded from the data set used to compute editorial rankings. See the methodology.
• Any author with a personal stake in a brand they cover (equity, employment, family, recent paid engagement) is recused from that article. Recusals are noted on the byline.
• Sponsored content, if ever published, will appear in a clearly separated section with a sponsored badge and the sponsor named. We do not currently accept sponsorship.
• Editorial staff disclose any direct holdings in publicly-listed supplement companies above EUR 5,000 in the author bio.

6. Funding sources

VitaminDB is funded primarily by affiliate commissions from merchant partners listed on the affiliate disclosure page. We do not currently accept advertising, investor capital, brand-sponsored content, government grants, or paid placement. We do not run cryptocurrency tokens. If our funding model ever changes materially, we will announce it on this page and in the changelog at least 30 days in advance.

7. AI usage disclosure

• We use AI tools to assist with research summarization, copy-editing, translation, and code generation.
• We do not publish AI-generated text without human authorship, editorial review, and source verification.
• Every article has a named human author who is accountable for its content.
• No article is published end-to-end by an AI system.
• AI-assisted translations are reviewed by a native speaker for technical and health terminology.
• Images generated by AI carry a credit (“Image: generated with [model], reviewed by [editor]”) and are not used for medical visuals.

8. What we do not publish

• Disease claims (“cures”, “treats”, “prevents” any condition).
• Dosing recommendations for individuals; we publish reference ranges from authoritative bodies and direct readers to a healthcare professional.
• Content targeting pregnant or nursing readers, children, or specific medical conditions without explicit professional review.
• Negative reviews without supporting evidence; criticism is evidence-based and gives the brand a right of reply (see Section 13).
• “Listicle” content padded for SEO without genuine new analysis.
• Content commissioned, edited, or approved by a third party with a commercial interest.

9. Health claims policy

Claims about supplement effects are written to comply with:

• EU Regulation 432/2012 (the Annex of approved EU health claims) and the EFSA scientific opinions that underlie it.
• FDA structure/function claim rules under DSHEA 1994 and 21 CFR 101.93.
• UK MHRA / Department of Health Nutrition and Health Claims Regulations.

Permitted phrasing examples: “contributes to the normal function of the immune system”, “supports normal energy-yielding metabolism”, “helps maintain normal bone”. Prohibited phrasing examples: “boosts immunity”, “cures fatigue”, “prevents osteoporosis”.

10. Headlines and standfirsts

• Headlines reflect the article’s actual claim, not the maximally clickable framing.
• No clickbait, no all-caps, no misleading questions, no “you won’t believe”.
• Standfirst (subtitle) summarises the article without overstating.
• Numbers in headlines are exact, not rounded for sensational effect.

11. Numbers, statistics, and rounding

• Statistics are dated; we say when the underlying data is from.
• Percentages and absolute numbers are presented together where useful (“30% increase, from 1,000 to 1,300 cases”).
• Rounding rule: round half-to-even for tabular data; round half-up for headline numbers.
• Confidence intervals or sample sizes accompany any statistic where they materially affect interpretation.
• Currency conversions use the European Central Bank reference rate at the date of publication; the rate and date are stated.

12. Image sourcing and credit

• Editorial photographs are licensed (Unsplash, Pexels, or paid stock) or produced in-house.
• Product images are taken from the merchant’s own product page under fair-use editorial purpose.
• Charts and diagrams produced in-house are CC-BY-4.0 unless stated.
• Every image has alt text describing what it depicts and, where relevant, why it appears.
• No AI-generated medical or anatomical imagery.

13. Brand coverage and right of reply

• Brand pages aggregate publicly-available facts, third-party lab data, and our own price tracking.
• Before publishing a substantive negative finding about a brand, we contact the brand for a response and incorporate it into the publication where reasonable.
• Brands may claim their brand page via the “Claim this brand” flow and publish a response card visible on the page.
• Factual disputes are handled by [email protected] and resolved with a public correction where warranted.

14. Negative reviews

A negative finding must be supported by evidence: lab failure, regulatory action, a documented quality issue, or a clear absence of supporting evidence for a marketing claim. Negative reviews state the evidence, the date, and the source. We do not publish ad hominem criticism of founders or staff.

15. Corrections

• If we get something material wrong, we correct it promptly.
• Material corrections are logged at the foot of the article with the original wording, the corrected wording, and the date.
• Minor edits (typos, formatting) are not logged.
• If a correction affects the headline or thesis, we update the URL slug only if the original URL would now be misleading; otherwise the original URL is preserved and the old phrasing is documented.
• To report an error: [email protected].

16. Retractions

When an article is so wrong that correction is not enough, we retract. Retraction means: (a) the original content is removed from the live page and replaced with a retraction notice explaining what was wrong and why; (b) the original wording is archived on the retraction notice for the public record; (c) the article URL remains accessible to preserve link integrity but is excluded from sitemaps and taggednoindex.

17. Editorial independence from advertisers

• No advertiser, affiliate network, or merchant has prior review of our editorial content.
• We refuse any partnership term that requires positive coverage, content approval, or suppression of negative findings.
• We have, and will exercise, the right to terminate any affiliate relationship that conditions its continuation on editorial concessions.
• Editors who feel pressure to slant coverage are encouraged to raise it via the internal channel and, if unresolved, externally (see the vulnerability and disclosure policy for whistleblower protections).

18. Newsroom diversity

We aspire to a contributor pool that reflects the diversity of our European and global readership. Where guides cover topics with strong gender, age, or geography-specific relevance, we seek input from contributors with relevant lived experience or professional specialisation.

19. Style guide

• House style: BBC News Style Guide as a default, with Guardian Style overrides where they better fit our voice.
• Spelling: British English in the EN locale; native conventions for DE / FR / ES / IT / NL / PT.
• Units: SI by default, US customary in parentheses where the topic is US-centric.
• Dates: ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) in tables and metadata; long form (“5 June 2026”) in prose.
• Currency: native currency symbol with code (€, EUR; $, USD).

20. Contact

Editorial correspondence, source disputes, and corrections: [email protected]. See the full contact page for other channels.