Editorial Standards

Last updated: May 2026

This page explains exactly how I research, verify, and write content for HollyHerman.com — what sources I use, what I check before I write anything, what I refuse to do, and how I handle corrections when I get something wrong.

I publish this because I think you deserve to know the difference between a site that holds itself accountable and one that doesn’t. Most review sites won’t tell you how they work because the answer is uncomfortable. Here’s mine.

Who I Am

I’m Holly Herman — the sole writer, researcher, and publisher on this site. I’m not a clinical team, an editorial board, or a content farm. Everything here is researched and written by me personally. I hold no medical or nutrition credentials. My authority on this site comes from doing the research thoroughly and honestly — not from a credential I can put after my name.

Source Standards

Before I write anything, I verify it against sources that can be checked. The sources I use, in order of priority:

• Peer-reviewed research: Published studies from indexed journals, sourced via PubMed, Google Scholar, or directly from the journal publisher. When I cite a study, I name the authors, year, and journal so you can look it up yourself. I do not cite “a study showed” without telling you which study.
• Official regulatory sources: The FDA (fda.gov), NIH (nih.gov), and equivalent government health agencies for regulatory status, approved uses, warning letters, and enforcement actions.
• Official product documentation: The brand’s own website, Supplement Facts panel, and published policies. I verify what’s actually on the label before writing about ingredients — marketing copy and the actual panel sometimes differ, and the panel is what I write to.
• Verified commercial data: Pricing, refund policies, and contact information verified by direct visit to the merchant’s site at time of writing. I note the verification date.
• Professional organization guidelines: Clinical practice guidelines from bodies like the Endocrine Society, American Heart Association, or equivalent, where relevant to the topic.

My Verification Protocol

For every product review, I complete the following before writing a word:

1. Source fetch: I visit the brand’s official website and extract the complete ingredient list, pricing structure, refund/guarantee terms, and contact information directly. I do not rely on third-party summaries.
2. Label vs. marketing check: I compare the Supplement Facts panel against marketing ingredient claims. If a brand’s marketing promotes an ingredient that isn’t on the panel at a meaningful dose, I flag it.
3. Research check: For key ingredients, I search PubMed for the relevant human trials and review their methodology, sample sizes, dosages used, and conclusions. I distinguish between human trials, animal studies, and in-vitro research — they are not equivalent evidence.
4. Pricing verification: I confirm current pricing directly from the brand’s checkout or pricing page, including any subscription requirements, shipping costs, or conditions that affect the stated price.
5. Regulatory check: For telehealth platforms and compounding pharmacies, I verify current regulatory status, licensing claims, and any FDA or FTC actions relevant to the platform or product category.

I note what I verified and when in the “What I Verified” section of product reviews. These dates are real — they reflect actual checks, not dates added for appearance.

Evidence Qualification Standards

I tell you what the evidence actually shows — including when it’s weak, mixed, or missing. My standard qualification language:

• “Strong evidence from multiple human trials” — multiple well-designed randomized controlled trials in humans showing consistent results at relevant doses.
• “Some evidence from human research” — one or a few human studies, often small or short-term. Promising but not definitive.
• “Preliminary evidence” — animal studies or in-vitro research with limited or no human trial data. May be interesting; not ready to act on alone.
• “No credible evidence” — marketing claims without supporting research, or claims directly contradicted by the available research.

I also flag when a study was funded by the manufacturer, when a dose used in research doesn’t match what’s in the product, and when “clinically proven” language refers to individual ingredients rather than the finished product.

What I Don’t Do

• I don’t fabricate specifics. No invented testimonials. No made-up customer outcomes. No percentage claims without a verified source.
• I don’t write to marketing copy. If a brand’s website says an ingredient does something and I can’t find credible research supporting it, I don’t repeat it as fact.
• I don’t cite studies I haven’t reviewed. “Studies show” without naming the study is not a citation — it’s a decoration. I name the study or I don’t cite it.
• I don’t let affiliate programs influence conclusions. I’ve given negative reviews to products with generous affiliate programs. I’ve praised products with no affiliate program. Commissions come from honest recommendations; they don’t come from softening conclusions to protect a relationship.
• I don’t update dates without updating content. When I refresh a page, I re-verify the facts before changing the date. Cosmetic year-bumping without re-verification is a form of deception toward readers and toward search engines.

Editorial Independence

No brand pays me to write reviews, and no company approves or reviews my content before it publishes. I do not accept free products in exchange for positive coverage. If I ever test a product provided by the brand, I disclose it in that article.

Affiliate relationships are disclosed on every page and in every article that contains paid links. My Affiliate Disclosure page explains the structure of these relationships in full. Commission potential does not influence my conclusions.

Corrections Policy

When I publish something wrong, I fix it — and I say so. My corrections process:

• Minor factual corrections (price change, reformulation, policy update): I update the content, update the verification date, and note “Updated [date] to reflect [change]” at the bottom of the relevant section.
• Substantive corrections (I got something meaningfully wrong): I update the content, add a visible correction notice at the top or bottom of the article explaining what changed and why, and update the “Last updated” date.
• Significant errors: If I made a claim that was factually incorrect and I’m embarrassed about it, I fix it, note it prominently, and don’t try to quietly bury it.

If you’ve found an error — factual mistake, outdated pricing, broken link, or anything that looks wrong — email me at [email protected]. I read these and act on legitimate corrections within 7 days.

Content Currency

Supplement formulations, telehealth platform pricing, regulatory status, and policy terms change without notice. I include verification dates in articles to show when facts were last confirmed. Pages covering products with frequently changing data (telehealth platform pricing, compounding medication availability) are reviewed at least quarterly.

If you find a pricing or policy discrepancy between what I’ve written and what a brand’s site currently shows, the brand’s current site is authoritative. Let me know and I’ll update the article.