Editorial Policy

Scope

This policy governs every piece of content published on NADFaq — including reference articles, research summaries, comparison pages, and blog posts.

Contributor standards

To contribute content under a byline, a contributor must meet at least one of:

• An advanced degree (PhD, MD, PharmD, or equivalent) in a relevant field (biochemistry, pharmacology, clinical medicine, molecular biology).
• A demonstrated publishing record in peer-reviewed literature on topics adjacent to NAD+ biology.
• Professional science writing experience at a tier-one outlet (nature.com, scientificamerican.com, statnews.com, or equivalent).

Contributors disclose any consulting, speaking, or equity relationships with supplement or pharmaceutical companies on their author profile. Disclosures are updated annually.

Review workflow

1. Outline review. Contributors submit an outline with intended citations before drafting.
2. Draft review. At least one qualified reviewer (see above) reads the draft for accuracy, tone, and evidence grading.
3. Editorial pass. An editor checks readability, internal linking, schema markup, and compliance with this policy.
4. Publish. Once approved, content is published with a byline and reviewer attribution.

Corrections

Errors are corrected in-place. Minor edits (typos, clarifications) are made silently. Substantive corrections (factual errors, updated evidence) trigger:

• An inline “Editor's note” at the point of correction.
• A changelog entry at the bottom of the article dated to the correction.
• Credit to the reader or reviewer who flagged the error (with consent).

AI use

We use AI tools to assist with drafting, editing, and schema generation. Every AI-assisted output is reviewed and edited by a human before publication. AI output is never published unreviewed. When a piece relies materially on AI-generated analysis (e.g., a literature synthesis drafted with an LLM), that fact is disclosed in the article footer.

Contact

Questions about this policy: editorial@nadfaq.com.