Editorial Policy and Standards

Our editorial principles

Editorial decisions are made by SquarepegIdeas. They are not controlled by current advertisers, future advertisers, sponsors, affiliate networks, or product partners. A commercial relationship does not decide which calculators we build, which products we mention, or how we describe the limits of a nutrition claim.

Accuracy comes before reach. Claims about metabolism, dietary intake, body composition, and training are checked against primary sources before publication. When the evidence does not support a stronger claim, we narrow the wording or remove the claim. Calculator outputs are described as estimates because that is what predictive equations provide.

Transparency is part of the publishing record. When a page receives a substantive review or update, the last reviewed date reflects that change. Minor edits such as spelling corrections do not reset the review date. Reader-first publishing also guides the page structure. We write to help users make informed decisions, not to keep them scrolling or steer them toward specific products.

These principles apply to calculator pages, methodology pages, educational guides, comparison pages, and any future affiliate content. The same claim should receive the same evidentiary standard wherever it appears on the site. If a statement would be too strong on a methodology page, it is too strong inside a product section or calculator result explanation. Consistency is part of accuracy.

Source standards

Tier 1 sources receive the highest weight. This category includes peer-reviewed primary research published in PubMed-indexed journals, government dietary guidelines from agencies such as USDA, NIH, and FDA, and position statements from professional bodies such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American College of Sports Medicine, ACOG, ESPEN, and the American Heart Association. When a calculator is based on a published formula, we use the original formula source where available.

Tier 2 sources are acceptable with context. These include systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and textbooks current within the last decade. A systematic review can be more useful than one small trial for understanding the overall direction of evidence, but it still depends on the quality of the included studies. Textbooks are used mainly for established formulas, definitions, and clinical nutrition background.

Tier 3 sources are used sparingly and with attribution. This category includes industry research, expert opinion pieces from credentialed practitioners, and high-quality secondary reporting. These sources can explain context, product categories, or professional debate. They do not serve as the primary source for product effects, disease claims, or calculator math.

We exclude anecdotal claims as evidence. We do not use non-peer-reviewed blog content as a primary source for health or nutrition claims. Product manufacturer marketing is not used as a source for product effects. Where evidence is mixed or still developing, which is common in nutrition science, we say that directly instead of presenting one side as settled.

Source recency is evaluated by topic. A metabolic equation published decades ago can remain appropriate when it is the original source for the formula and later comparisons still support its use. A pregnancy, supplement, medication, or disease-related statement requires more current guidance because the risk profile and professional recommendations can change. When a source is old but still foundational, we identify it as foundational rather than pretending it is new.

We also distinguish between measured outcomes and interpretation. A study can measure resting metabolic rate, protein intake, lean mass, or bodyweight change. It does not automatically prove that every reader should follow a specific diet. Our copy should preserve that boundary by explaining what the evidence directly supports and what remains a practical application.

Conflict of interest policy

Pages that include affiliate links carry a clear disclosure near the relevant section. Affiliate relationships do not influence the editorial assessment of products or services. If a product is mentioned, the explanation must stand on its own without relying on commission potential.

Advertising is separate from editorial work. Ads served by Google AdSense or another ad network are matched to page content and visitor context by the ad network. Those ads do not decide what content we publish, which formulas we use, or how we explain risk and uncertainty.

We do not accept payment in exchange for favorable coverage of products, services, brands, or research. Paid placement is not part of the editorial model for this site. If sponsored content is ever published in the future, it must be labeled clearly and separated from independent editorial recommendations.

Members of the SquarepegIdeas editorial team disclose material personal financial interests that overlap with content topics. A material interest includes ownership, employment, consulting income, or direct compensation from a company that would reasonably be affected by the content. As of the last reviewed date on this page, no such disclosures apply.

Product access does not change the standard. Free samples, trial accounts, software credits, or affiliate dashboards are not payment for favorable coverage. If access creates a meaningful limitation, such as evaluating a product without long-term use or without independent lab testing, that limitation should be stated in the relevant content. We do not let access replace evidence.

Corrections process

Errors are corrected promptly when identified. Minor corrections, such as typos, broken links, formatting issues, or wording changes that do not affect meaning, are made silently. These edits keep pages readable without creating a correction record for non-substantive changes.

Substantive corrections are handled differently. If we correct a factual error, calculation error, outdated guideline, unsupported claim, or safety-relevant statement, we add a brief correction note to the affected page. The note is dated and identifies what changed. If calculator math changes, related methodology text is reviewed at the same time.

To report a suspected error, use the Contact page. The most useful reports include the URL, the specific claim or calculation in question, what you believe is wrong, and a source supporting the corrected version if one is available. Specific factual concerns are reviewed before general feedback.

Correction review starts with the original source when the issue concerns a formula or citation. If the issue concerns implementation, we compare the source formula with the code path and test representative inputs. If the issue concerns guidance, we compare the page against the most relevant professional statement or government source. The goal is to correct the record without making a broader change than the evidence supports.

Reader feedback and updates

We welcome feedback on calculator behavior, content accuracy, unclear explanations, and gaps in coverage. Feedback is reviewed at least monthly and informs the next round of content updates. A report about a possible safety issue, formula error, or outdated medical guidance receives higher priority than a feature suggestion.

We do not respond individually to every message, but we read every one. A clear report from a reader is often the fastest way to find an edge case that did not appear during internal review. When reader feedback leads to a substantive correction, the affected page carries the correction record described above.

Scheduled updates focus on pages with the highest accuracy risk first: calculators, medical-context disclaimers, pages for special populations, and pages that cite changing guidelines. Lower-risk pages, such as general site information, still receive review, but they do not displace safety or calculation issues. This order keeps review time aligned with potential reader impact.