// Independent Testing · No Affiliates · No Sponsored Placements Methodology · Editorial
Independent Reviews
// EDITORIAL

Editorial Policy

Last updated April 21, 2026

This document outlines the process through which content transitions from a tester's notes to a published page on Independent Reviews. Each page on the site follows this procedure; if any part is overlooked or shortened, the article does not get published.

Editorial workflow

  1. Drafting. The initial draft is created by a writer (usually Declan for comparisons and migration guides, Sebastian for major head-to-head reviews, and Jonah for free-tier and pricing articles) based on the lab's tested data. Drafts not founded on primary testing data are dismissed at this stage and do not proceed to review.
  2. Senior editor review. Declan, acting as Senior Editor, evaluates every comparison, best-of list, review, and migration guide for editorial integrity, consistency of voice, factual assertions needing citations, and avoidance of affiliate-focused language. Declan also performs structural edits, determining what to cut, what to rearrange, and what requires a sub-section.
  3. Methodology director review. Helena assesses any content that involves a clinical, scientific, or nutrition-related claim. This includes, but is not limited to, discussions on protein leverage, GLP-1 nutrition framing, micronutrient assertions, body composition rhetoric, MAPE interpretation, and any reference to risks associated with disordered eating. Helena holds gating authority and has exercised it.
  4. Editor-in-chief sign-off. Sebastian provides the final approval for every published article. Typically, this takes about 5 minutes for most articles. However, for ranked content (head-to-head comparisons, best-of lists, single-app reviews with a published 100-point score), Sebastian's approval is dual-tester: as Lead Tester, he confirms that the score aligns with what he observed during testing.

For content driven by benchmarks, Mei-Lin adds a fifth checkpoint: statistical review. If a published article contains a MAPE, a confidence interval, or a sample-size claim, Mei-Lin validates the mathematics before the text is released.

Re-test cadence

Apps change. Pricing fluctuates; databases enhance; AI models undergo retraining. Our re-test schedule is available on the methodology page and is summarized here:

Each page includes a "last updated" date. If this date exceeds the cadence mentioned above, the page is considered overdue and is treated as a quality concern. Readers who spot an overdue page should email corrections@.

Source quality standards

Every factual claim on the site is categorized into one of four groups:

Marketing materials, vendor blog posts, and unverifiable third-party claims are not recognized as primary evidence. We may refer to them when explicitly discussing what an app claims about itself, but we do not present their assertions to readers as facts.

Conflict of interest policy

No contributor is allowed to have equity, receive honoraria, or serve in an advisory role for any app reviewed on this site. We do not currently have affiliate accounts with any of the apps we evaluate (refer to affiliate disclosure). Contributors who establish a disclosable relationship, such as a paid speaking engagement at a vendor conference, must inform Sebastian in writing and withdraw from the relevant coverage.

We accept review-unit access (free premium accounts, beta access) under the same conditions as the public press list. We do not accept paid trips, paid review-unit hardware (rings, watches, scales), or any compensation in exchange for coverage. When a piece depends on a complimentary premium account, we disclose this in the article.

Corrections

The corrections policy is fully detailed on the corrections page. In summary, we acknowledge factual inaccuracies within 72 hours, publish a visible correction notice on the affected page, and publicly log every correction with date, page, and details of what was changed. We do not discreetly edit substantial errors out of pages.

Reader feedback

Emails from readers regarding specific articles, methodology critiques, and notifications about app changes can be sent to editor@independent-reviews.org. We read every message; although we cannot reply to all, the categories that always receive a response include corrections, methodology critiques, and tips that prompt an out-of-cycle re-test.

Use of AI

Our utilization of AI tools is described on the how we use AI page. AI tools assist in summarizing research, finding citations, and editing text. AI is not involved in generating primary text, scores, rankings, or claims. Each page on this site is authored and approved by designated human contributors.