Editorial Policy
How Pure City Research creates, reviews, and maintains content — so you can trust the process, not just the conclusions.
Content standards
The following is the target standard for new and substantively updated ingredient articles. Legacy articles are being brought into this format. Each article's visible sections and review metadata show its current status.
- Direct answer blockIn the first 100 words — the conclusion before the detail.
- All forms and typesCompared head-to-head (e.g., for omega-3: fish oil, krill, algal, flaxseed).
- Material side effectsReported adverse effects, the studied population, and relevant dose or duration limits, where supported.
- Clinically relevant interactionsInteractions supported by authoritative sources, with uncertainty stated where evidence is limited.
- A verdict per benefitGraded Works / Doesn't / Mixed / Insufficient evidence.
- Evidence summary tableCiting primary sources, with funding and conflict status for each study.
- Doses studiedResearch quantities and product forms, clearly separated from individualized medical advice; India-specific regulatory context where verified.
- Author & reviewer attributionA named writer and, only when review has occurred, the named qualified reviewer, relevant credentials, and the date of that review. Organization authorship does not substitute for a human clinical reviewer.
- Methodology & disclosureExplaining how the article was researched.
Evidence grading
Benefit claims should use this four-point evidence scale:
Strong
Supported by multiple high-quality RCTs or a systematic review, with at least some independent (non-industry) funding.
Moderate
Supported by some RCT evidence but limited by sample size, quality, or funding independence.
Weak
Only mechanistic, animal, or small human studies; insufficient to recommend.
Insufficient
No reliable human evidence.
Keep labels separate: Evidence grades describe the strength of evidence for a claim. Benefit verdicts (Works, Mixed, Doesn't, Insufficient evidence) and safety flags are separate labels and must not be used as overall evidence grades.
Funding & conflicts of interest
- We look for funding and conflict information in claim-bearing studies and report what can be verified.
- Missing disclosure is recorded as unclear, not assumed to be independent. Where materially different findings are relevant, the article should explain the disagreement and important study limitations.
- Any relevant commercial, affiliate, ownership, funding, or sponsorship relationship must be disclosed with affected content.
Affiliate & commerce disclosure
Any affiliate link or relevant commercial relationship must be disclosed with the affected content. Evidence grades must be set through the documented editorial method and not changed to serve a commercial relationship.
Corrections & review cadence
Last reviewed date is displayed only after a responsible reviewer has completed that review.What we will not do
- Publish health claims without appropriate original research, evidence synthesis, or regulatory support.
- Cite marketing materials or press releases as evidence.
- Fabricate author or reviewer credentials.
- Use schema or structured data to assert facts not visible on the page.
- Allow commercial relationships to influence evidence grades.
Policy version: July 2026