Editorial standards

A menopause page can sound confident and still be wrong. A study may not match the product, dose, or outcome being discussed. A label can change after the photo was taken. A quote can sound stronger than the source supports.

PeriProof’s editorial standards are designed to catch those gaps. They do not promise perfect information. They tell you what we check, what we refuse to guess, and what happens when we get something wrong.

We do not invent sources

Every research claim must point to material we actually obtained and reviewed. A citation needs an identifiable author or organization, a title, and a locator such as a DOI, PubMed record, URL, or regulatory document. We do not create plausible-looking citations, and we do not use a source we could not retrieve.

The source also needs to fit the sentence beside it. Evidence about one ingredient is not evidence for a finished product. Evidence in one population is not evidence for every menopause experience. If a relevant study cannot be found, we say “no relevant study found” rather than treating absence of evidence as proof of an effect.

For claims about what is inside a product, the manufacturer’s current label is the starting record, not the end. We record the exact ingredient identity, amount, and dose when those details are available. A product name alone is not enough.

Records carry dates and boundaries

Time matters. A page should not quietly blend a current product description with an old price, formula, or study. Records are therefore dated and kept tied to the claim they support. When a source has been revised or a product page changes, the old record should remain inspectable so the change can be understood.

“Dated” does not mean “guaranteed current.” It means the reader can see what was checked and when. If a value is not stated by the source, we say it is not stated. We do not fill the gap with a guess.

Health information has a sharper boundary. PeriProof does not diagnose, prescribe, or promise that a supplement, ingredient, test, or product will prevent, cure, or treat a disease or symptom. A laboratory ingredient is not automatically a proven treatment. “Hormone-free,” “natural,” or “clinically studied” is a product claim, not proof of safety or effectiveness.

Our product reviews and comparisons are label-and-evidence reads, not medical advice. They are meant to support an informed conversation with a qualified clinician, not replace one.

Writers do not judge their own work

The person who drafts a page does not give it the final pass. A separate reviewer checks the page against the editorial standards, including citation support, claim boundaries, frontmatter, links, and the health-claims rule. This separation is deliberate. It gives a reviewer permission to reject work without negotiating with the writer who produced it.

If that review finds a material problem, the page stays in staging or goes back for correction. Publishing speed does not override a failed standard.

Corrections leave a log

Corrections are part of the record, not something to hide. A correction log should identify the page, the problem, what changed, and when the correction was made. Material changes include fixing a fact, narrowing a claim that outran its evidence, or removing a statement that should never have been published.

The exact wording of a correction should tell readers what changed without spinning it. “Updated” is not enough. If an error could change a reader’s decision or health-related understanding, the correction should say so plainly.

Verification and commercial interests stay visible

Our receipt checks are described in how we verify receipts. That process records the source, date, and limits of a claim so a reader can inspect the trail rather than trust a verdict.

Commercial relationships are handled separately under our affiliate disclosure policy. A link does not buy a favorable conclusion. If a product has a negative case, poor evidence fit, or unresolved safety concern, the page says so. The broader approach is set out in our method.

Editorial standards are a boundary on what we publish. They cannot remove uncertainty from menopause research. They can keep that uncertainty visible.