ABOUT & TRUST
Readers should be able to report an error, and meaningful corrections should be made transparently.
Longevity Research Review aims to keep factual claims, citations, product information and evidence summaries accurate.
Scientific content can become outdated, products can change, links can break, and editorial mistakes can occur.
We welcome specific correction reports.
What to report
Useful correction reports include:
- an incorrect factual statement;
- a citation that does not support the associated claim;
- a retracted or materially corrected paper;
- an outdated guideline or regulatory status;
- a calculation or unit error;
- a product that has been discontinued or reformulated;
- an incorrect price, specification or compatibility statement;
- a broken source or internal link;
- wording that materially overstates the evidence;
- a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed.
How to submit a correction
Use the Contact page and choose Editorial correction.
Please include:
- the article or page URL;
- the exact statement or section;
- what you believe is wrong or outdated;
- a supporting source when possible.
Specific reports can be reviewed much faster than general objections.
How we review corrections
A correction request may be checked against:
- the cited paper;
- primary research;
- systematic reviews;
- current professional guidance;
- regulatory sources;
- manufacturer documentation for product specifications;
- archived versions of the page where needed.
A company, author or reader does not automatically receive a change simply by requesting one. The decision is based on the evidence and accuracy of the page.
Types of changes
Minor correction
Examples:
- spelling;
- formatting;
- broken link;
- minor wording;
- obvious unit typo that does not affect the conclusion.
Minor fixes may be made without a prominent correction note.
Material correction
Examples:
- wrong study interpretation;
- incorrect numerical result;
- misleading evidence grade;
- incorrect safety statement;
- product detail that changes the buying recommendation;
- claim affected by a retraction or major new evidence.
Material corrections should be accompanied by a visible note explaining what changed.
Update
An update is different from a correction.
A page can have been accurate when written and later require revision because new research, guidelines, prices or products appeared.
Meaningful updates should use an updated date and, where useful, a short explanation of what changed.
Retractions and unreliable sources
If a cited paper is retracted or a major integrity issue becomes known, the affected claim should be reviewed promptly.
The citation should not remain as if nothing happened.
No silent rewriting to preserve a prediction
If an article made a strong claim that later evidence contradicts, the preferred response is to update the conclusion transparently—not to rewrite the old page in a way that makes it appear the original prediction was always correct.
Disagreements
Not every disagreement is an error.
Reasonable experts can interpret uncertain evidence differently. When the underlying facts and citations are correct, we may retain our editorial interpretation while clarifying the uncertainty or adding important context.
Response expectations
We review substantive reports, but we cannot guarantee a personal response to every submission.
Corrections that could materially affect health interpretation or a major factual conclusion receive higher priority.