These guidelines govern how all content on LeanBiome Reviews is researched, written, and published. Our goal is to provide readers with honest, evidence-based supplement analysis that helps them make informed decisions — regardless of commercial relationships.
Our editorial team operates independently of the manufacturers whose products we review. We do not accept payment to alter editorial findings, write positive reviews, or remove negative content. Affiliate relationships are disclosed prominently but do not influence our assessments. We include genuine limitations and publish authentic negative customer reviews because our long-term credibility depends on reader trust, not short-term conversion optimisation. If a product does not meet our evidence standards, we say so clearly — even if we are an affiliate for that product.
All ingredient claims must be supported by published clinical evidence accessible in PubMed. We prioritise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) over observational studies, human trials over animal studies, and peer-reviewed publications over manufacturer white papers or conference proceedings. We only cite studies with verifiable PMIDs that we have independently accessed and confirmed match the finding cited. We never fabricate, misrepresent, or cite studies we have not reviewed.
Every product review must include genuine limitations, not just benefits. Our minimum requirements for cons sections include: disclosure of any dosage transparency issues (such as proprietary blends), statement that no formula-specific clinical trial exists where applicable, and honest acknowledgement that individual results vary. We publish verified negative customer reviews alongside positive ones. We structure competitor comparisons neutrally — our affiliate product does not win every comparison category.
Our overall rating is a weighted average of five sub-scores. Ingredient Quality (30%) assesses how many ingredients have human RCT evidence and the quality of that evidence. Clinical Evidence (25%) assesses strength and relevance of published research. Value for Money (20%) compares cost against comparable evidence-backed products. Guarantee (15%) assesses length, terms, and accessibility of the refund policy. Transparency (10%) assesses label disclosure and manufacturing verification. Products using proprietary blends are capped at 3.5/5 for Transparency regardless of other strengths — this applies to LeanBiome and is noted clearly in our review.
Team members are excluded from reviewing products where they have direct financial relationships beyond the standard affiliate arrangement. Manufacturers may not review content before publication or request changes to editorial findings. They may submit factual corrections with supporting evidence which we investigate independently — but cannot request removal of negative findings, alter ratings, or modify editorial conclusions. Unsolicited requests to alter editorial content are declined without exception.
When factual errors are identified, we correct them promptly and note the correction date. If a correction materially changes our assessment of a product, we update the relevant rating and note the basis for the change. We do not silently update content to remove findings that were accurate at original publication. Contact contact@leanbiomem.com with evidence of any factual error and we will investigate within 5 business days. See our review process and about us pages for further background.
We do not accept guest posts from external contributors. All content on LeanBiome Reviews is written by our editorial team or researchers in our network who are subject to the same independence and evidence standards described in these guidelines. This restriction exists because we cannot ensure full compliance with our conflicts-of-interest policy for external contributors. We also do not publish externally produced press releases, white papers, or sponsored content from manufacturers, even when it meets our factual standards. The editorial boundary between what we write and what manufacturers want published must be absolute to maintain reader trust. For research collaboration enquiries, contact us through our contact page. Our review process page explains our methodology in detail.
These editorial guidelines are a living document. As the supplement industry evolves, regulatory guidance changes, and our own experience informs us of edge cases not covered here, we update these guidelines accordingly. The “Last Updated” date on this page reflects the most recent revision. If you believe our published content does not conform to the guidelines described here — including our balance requirements, citation standards, or disclosure policies — please contact us at contact@leanbiomem.com with the specific page and the specific guideline you believe was not followed. We take these complaints seriously and investigate all credible reports of non-compliance with our own standards.
These guidelines represent our best current thinking about what honest, useful supplement editorial looks like. They are not perfect and they will evolve. But they represent a genuine commitment to standards that we believe are worth holding ourselves to — and worth making public so that readers can hold us accountable to them as well. Our about us page provides further context on the team and mission behind these standards.