Supplement Research Editor
The Supplement Research Editor is the editorial role within the FactoWiki Research Team responsible for the standard of our supplement content — what gets researched, how claims are checked, and where the line is drawn on what we will and will not say. This page describes that role and its standards rather than a fabricated individual; we publish under a team identity and do not attach invented names or credentials to our work.
What this role is
The Supplement Research Editor is a function, not a marketing persona. It describes the editorial responsibility — held within the FactoWiki Research Team — for the accuracy, framing and safety of our supplement coverage. We are deliberately transparent that this is an editorial role rather than a named, credentialed individual, because the alternative common in this industry (inventing a 'Dr.' to sign off content) is exactly the kind of false trust signal we refuse to use.
What this role reviews
This role oversees how ingredients are assessed, how product formulas and claims are scrutinised, how comparisons are kept even-handed (including flagging the trade-offs of products we may earn from), and how health-answer articles are framed. The editorial brief is consistent: describe the real state of the evidence, including doses and limitations, and refuse to overstate benefits or imply a supplement can treat disease.
Editorial standards
The standards this role enforces are the same ones the whole team works to: evidence over marketing; cautious structure-and-function language; honest treatment of weak, mixed or industry-funded research; clear safety and interaction warnings; and a strict separation between commercial relationships and editorial conclusions. Content that cannot meet these standards is not published. See our editorial policy for the detail.
How sources are checked
Claims are checked against reputable, independent sources — peer-reviewed studies via PubMed and authorities such as the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH, MedlinePlus and the FDA — not against sellers' pages. Weak or preliminary evidence is labelled as such, original sources are preferred over aggregators, and unverifiable claims are left out. We never fabricate citations, results, credentials or reviews. Our process is described in how we review supplements.
The review process
The editor role exists to make the process repeatable. Each piece begins with the question or claim to be assessed, followed by an independent evidence search — PubMed for primary research, plus the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH, MedlinePlus and the FDA — and the evidence is then graded by quality, with systematic reviews and randomised trials outranking anecdote, animal work or industry material. Drafts are written in plain language with their limitations stated openly, checked back against their sources, and reviewed against these standards before publication, then revisited periodically as the evidence changes.
Checking product claims
For product content, the standard is to judge the formula, not the marketing. That means reading the Supplement Facts panel directly, comparing each active ingredient with its researched dose, and flagging proprietary blends that conceal those amounts. Vendor assertions are kept separate from the evidence, and every headline claim is tested against the trial record — often revealing under-dosed 'hero' ingredients or an untested finished blend. A seller's 'cure', 'treat' or 'reverse' wording is never repeated as established fact.
How affiliate links are handled
Some product links on review pages earn a commission, which is disclosed. The role's job is to keep that commercial layer away from the conclusions: products we earn from still have their weaknesses, hidden doses and failure points named, and buy links are kept off head-to-head comparisons where they could bias the verdict. The arrangement is described in full in our affiliate disclosure.
Why this role rejects cure claims
Because supplements are not drugs, they cannot be presented as able to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. The editor enforces cautious structure-and-function language, insists the page say so when the honest verdict is 'this probably doesn't work' or 'see a doctor', and refuses fabricated studies, citations, credentials, reviews or before-and-after results. Health decisions ride on this content, which is why the line on what we will not say is held firmly.
Medical disclaimer
FactoWiki's supplement content is educational only and is not medical advice. Supplements are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before starting a supplement, particularly if you are pregnant or nursing, take medication or have a health condition. See our full medical disclaimer.
Where this role draws the line
Much of the editor's job is deciding what will not be published. The role refuses fabricated reviewer personas and invented medical credentials, made-up customer testimonials or before-and-after results, inflated star ratings that don't match the actual review evidence, citations that cannot be verified against a real source, and any disease, 'cure' or guaranteed-result claim. It also means flagging the trade-offs of products the site earns from, not just their strengths. This is an editorial standard, not a medical one: the role exists to keep the content accurate, sourced and honestly framed — it does not make this site a substitute for a clinician, a pharmacist, or a product's own label and a doctor's advice.
Contact and corrections
Spotted something wrong? Accuracy reports go to the top of our queue. Contact us with the page and the specific detail, and we will review it under our correction policy.