Corrections Policy

When we issue a correction

A correction is issued whenever a piece of published content contains a factual error or when the underlying evidence base has shifted in a way that changes what the page should say. Typical triggers include:

• Mis-pasted or transposed PMIDs — a citation that points to the wrong paper, a broken PubMed link, or a reference that no longer resolves.
• Stale dosage figures — an effective-dose range that predates a newer, better-powered trial, or a milligram figure that conflicts with the cited source.
• Misattributed citations — a claim linked to a study whose findings do not actually support it, or a reviewer quote attributed to the wrong author.
• Corrected evidence interpretations — for example, a prior meta-analysis has been superseded by a newer pooled analysis with materially different conclusions.
• Product-availability changes — a recommended product is discontinued, reformulated, or pulled from a retailer in a way that affects the recommendation.

How to report an error

Email contact@supplementscience.ai with the subject line in the format [Correction] <page URL>. In the body, tell us:

• The specific claim or passage in question (quote it if you can).
• Why you believe it is inaccurate or out of date.
• A supporting source — a PubMed link, regulatory notice, product page, or equivalent primary source.

If email is inconvenient, you can file the same information through the contact form. Correction reports are handled with the same SLA regardless of channel.

Turnaround SLA

You will receive an acknowledgment within 2 business days. The acknowledgment confirms that the report has been logged and names the triage outcome — either "accepted for review", "requesting more detail", or "declined with reasoning to follow".

Material corrections — those that introduce a new reference, change a dosage figure, or update a safety-profile field — trigger a reviewer check within 5 business days of acknowledgment. Non-material fixes (typos, broken links, formatting) are typically resolved inside the same window but without a separate reviewer pass.

How corrections are marked

For material corrections, a dated correction note is appended to the page body describing what was changed and why, so the revision history is visible to readers rather than silently overwritten.

Every correction — material or not — updates the page's dateModified field. That update regenerates the sitemap and the AI-facing content index (llms-full.txt) so search engines and LLM crawlers see the revised version on their next pass rather than serving a stale cached copy.

Disputes

Not every reported error results in a correction. If we decline to change a page — most often because the existing text already reflects the best available evidence, or because the proposed alternative is contradicted by a stronger source — the requester receives a reasoned written response. That response cites the specific evidence we relied on and explains how we weighed it against the source they supplied.

Declined reports are not closed permanently. If new evidence surfaces — a newer meta-analysis, a regulatory update, a retraction of the paper we were relying on — the report can be reopened and will be re-evaluated against the new record.

Evidence-update re-review

Corrections do not only flow from external reports. We queue content for reviewer re-read on our own initiative when the underlying evidence base shifts. Two standing triggers:

• A newly published peer-reviewed meta-analysis supersedes one we were citing, in a way that could change dose recommendations, evidence-level ratings, or the headline verdict.
• FDA or equivalent regulatory action — a warning letter, recall, import alert, or updated safety guidance — changes the safety profile of an ingredient, product, or category we cover.

When either trigger fires, the affected ingredient, condition, or comparison page is queued for a reviewer re-read. If the re-read produces a change, the page is corrected and dated under the same process described above.