Editorial Standards

Research Methodology

Good.You is committed to evidence-aware content. This page explains how we source, evaluate, and present health and wellness information.

Last updated: April 2025

Our Evidence Standards

We prioritise peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses over single studies or anecdotal reports. Our content is written to reflect the weight of available evidence, not to amplify outlier findings.

We distinguish clearly between what evidence suggests, what is well-established, and what remains debated or uncertain.

Source Hierarchy

1
Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses — Highest weight. Published in peer-reviewed journals (PubMed, Cochrane, etc.).
2
Randomised Controlled Trials — Strong evidence when well-designed and independently replicated.
3
Cohort & Observational Studies — Used to provide context, with correlation-causation limitations noted.
4
Expert Consensus & Clinical Guidelines — National health bodies (NHS, CDC, WHO) and professional associations.
5
Qualified Expert Opinion — Only from credentialed professionals in the relevant field.

What We Do Not Do

  • We do not amplify single studies with extreme claims as if settled science.
  • We do not diagnose, treat, or provide personalised medical advice.
  • We do not publish sponsored research findings without disclosure.
  • We do not use predatory or low-quality journals as primary sources.

Review & Update Cycle

All evergreen health articles are reviewed on a rolling 12-month cycle. When significant new research changes consensus, we update articles promptly and note the update date.

YMYL-adjacent content (content relating to health decisions) undergoes additional review by a qualified professional before publication.

Found an Error?

We take accuracy seriously. If you believe any content contains a factual error, please let us know and we will review it promptly.

Report a Correction