Our Editorial Methodology
Transparent, evidence-informed nutrition guidance built on rigorous research standards and editorial integrity.
Every article, meal plan guide, and nutritional recommendation passes through multiple layers of review to ensure accuracy, clarity, and practical value for our readers across New Zealand.
The Six-Step Content Development Process
Our content journey begins with research and ends with independent review. Here's how we create guides you can trust.
Topic Research & Scope Definition
We identify nutrition topics aligned with reader interests and knowledge gaps. Each topic undergoes preliminary research across peer-reviewed databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and nutrition-specific journals. Our editorial team defines the article scope, target audience, and key learning outcomes before writing begins.
Duration: 2–3 days | Deliverable: Content brief with 10+ primary sources
Source Verification & Data Extraction
Our researchers collect evidence from validated sources. We prioritise randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses over opinion pieces. Each claim is tagged with its source publication, year, and sample size. We cross-reference multiple sources to avoid single-study bias and ensure findings reflect current scientific consensus, not outlier results.
Minimum sources per article: 8–15 peer-reviewed publications
First Draft & Content Production
Writers synthesise research into clear, structured narratives. We emphasise practical application—what does this mean for your meal planning? We avoid medical jargon where possible and include worked examples, real-world scenarios, and actionable takeaways. Each draft includes inline citations linking back to source documents.
Structure: Introduction | Key concepts (3–5 sections) | Practical application | FAQ | Related resources
Internal Editorial Review
Senior editors and nutrition advisors review all content for accuracy, consistency, and tone. We check claims against source documents, verify citations, and test practical guidance (e.g., does that recipe actually work?). This phase typically uncovers 15–25% of refinements needed, from factual corrections to structural improvements.
Reviewers: 2–3 independent editors per article | Average review time: 3–5 days
Independent Fact-Check & Revision
A dedicated fact-checker (separate from the writing and editing team) validates every quantified claim, reference, and recommendation. They confirm sample sizes, publication years, and researcher affiliations. Disputed claims are either removed, softened ("emerging research suggests"), or supported with additional sources. This creates a crucial buffer against bias.
Red flag items checked: Percentages, nutrient values, study populations, conflict-of-interest disclosures
Publication & Ongoing Monitoring
Approved content is published with publication date, last-reviewed date, and author credentials. We monitor published articles quarterly—when new major research emerges, we flag articles for update. Outdated guidance is revised or clearly marked "historical reference" to maintain reader trust and prevent the spread of superseded information.
Review cycle: Every 3–6 months depending on topic | Update log: Visible on each article
Quality Assurance Standards
Our internal checklist ensures every article meets these non-negotiable criteria before publication.
✓ Evidence Quality
- • Minimum 8 peer-reviewed sources per article
- • At least 50% from studies published in last 5 years
- • No claims based on single studies (exceptions noted)
- • Author financial conflicts disclosed in citations
- • Preference for systematic reviews over individual trials
✓ Clarity & Accessibility
- • Target readership: secondary school reading level+
- • Medical terminology explained on first use
- • Real-world examples provided (meals, portions, timing)
- • Visual aids (tables, infographics) when helpful
- • Estimated reading time displayed prominently
✓ Balance & Nuance
- • Conflicting research presented fairly (not cherry-picked)
- • Limitations of studies acknowledged
- • Distinction made: established vs. emerging research
- • Individual variation noted (not one-size-fits-all)
- • Recommendations flagged if outside mainstream consensus
✓ Safety & Responsibility
- • Disclaimer present: "Not medical advice"
- • High-risk populations identified (pregnancy, allergies, etc.)
- • Advice to consult professionals when relevant
- • No promises of specific health outcomes
- • Current as of publication date clearly stated
✓ Citation & Transparency
- • Every factual claim linked to source
- • Full citations provided (authors, year, DOI)
- • Quotes use original publication (not secondary sources)
- • Author credentials disclosed
- • Editorial team listed and accessible for feedback
✓ Consistency & Brand Voice
- • Terminology consistent across all articles
- • Tone: informative, friendly, non-promotional
- • No sensationalism or diet-culture language
- • New Zealand audience context maintained
- • Internal links checked for accuracy and relevance
Primary Information Sources
We draw from internationally recognised, peer-reviewed databases and organisations. All sources are independently verifiable and transparent.
Scientific Databases
PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science: Peer-reviewed research from nutrition science, dietetics, and applied physiology. We filter for studies with clear methodologies and appropriate sample sizes (n > 30 for observational, n > 50 for intervention trials).
Professional Standards Bodies
Dietitians Association of Australia, Nutrition Society of New Zealand, British Dietetic Association, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (USA): We align meal planning principles with professional guidelines and public health recommendations. Position papers and evidence reviews from these bodies inform best-practice guidance.
Government & Public Health Data
New Zealand Ministry of Health, Food Safety Authority, WHO, NHS UK: National dietary guidelines, nutrient reference values, and population health statistics provide context for localised recommendations. We interpret official guidelines and tailor them to New Zealand readers where relevant.
Textbooks & Reference Works
Mahan & Escott-Stump's "Krause and Mahan's Food, Nutrition, & Diet Therapy", Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, Nutrition Science and Applications: Foundational and contemporary textbooks provide mechanistic detail and comprehensive overviews. We cite specific editions to ensure reproducibility.
What We Exclude
Blog posts, supplement marketing, celebrity endorsements, unpublished theses, conference abstracts without full manuscripts, anecdotal case reports, and opinion pieces. We acknowledge gaps where consensus is weak and clearly label emerging or speculative topics to avoid overstating certainty.
Case Study: How We Approached "Fibre and Digestive Health"
A real example of our methodology in action—from research to publication.
Phase 1: Research Brief (Days 1–2)
Topic proposal: "How much fibre should you eat, and does type matter?" Our editorial team identified 15 recent meta-analyses on soluble vs. insoluble fibre, bowel health outcomes, and individual tolerance. We defined scope: practical meal-planning advice for adults, not athletes or clinical populations.
Phase 2: Source Collection (Days 3–5)
Our researcher pulled 22 papers: 4 systematic reviews (2018–2024), 8 RCTs, 7 observational studies, and 3 position statements from professional bodies. Cross-tabulation showed consensus on recommended intake (25–35g daily) but divergence on type-specific benefits. We flagged the divergence for clear acknowledgment in the article.
Phase 3: First Draft (Days 6–10)
Writer synthesised findings into 5 sections: What is fibre? | Types and food sources | Current guidelines | Practical strategies for increasing intake | Common questions. Included real meal examples (e.g., "Adding 1 cup cooked lentils adds ~15g fibre"). Draft included 12 inline citations with DOIs.
Phase 4: Editorial Review (Days 11–15)
Two editors flagged: (1) a claim about "rapid fibre increase causes bloating" lacked direct evidence—we softened to "some individuals report". (2) A recommendation to "avoid white bread" was too prescriptive—we reframed as "whole-grain alternatives offer more fibre per serving." Minor restructure moved FAQ higher.
Phase 5: Fact-Check (Days 16–18)
Fact-checker verified all percentages, sample sizes, and publication years. Spotted that one cited study (n=22) was unusually small for a claim we'd made—we removed it and substituted a larger RCT (n=180). Confirmed all DOI links resolved correctly.
Phase 6: Publication & Monitoring
Article published with author bio, publication date (15 Nov 2024), disclaimer, and feedback email. Flagged for 3-month review. When new guidelines from Dietitians NZ were released in Jan 2025, we updated the "Current Guidelines" section and logged the revision.
Result: A 2000-word guide backed by 12 peer-reviewed sources, reviewed by 3 editors, fact-checked independently, and transparently acknowledged where evidence was mixed or populations differed. Total timeline: 4 weeks from brief to publication.
Reader Feedback & Continuous Improvement
We believe our methodology improves when readers—including nutrition professionals—point out gaps or errors.
📧 How to Send Feedback
Found an error? Spotted outdated research? Disagree with our interpretation? Email us at [email protected] with:
- • Article title and date
- • Specific claim or section
- • Your concern (error, outdated, unclear)
- • Supporting evidence if relevant
We aim to respond within 5 business days. All feedback is reviewed by our editorial team.
🔄 What Happens Next
If feedback is valid:
- • We investigate using our source protocols
- • Article is updated with new information
- • Revision logged publicly on the article
- • Reader credited (with permission)
- • Error documented internally to prevent recurrence
Transparency builds trust. We'd rather admit and fix mistakes than hide them.
Our Commitment to You
You deserve nutrition information that is accurate, transparent, and grounded in evidence. We don't promise quick fixes or miracle solutions. Instead, we offer carefully researched, honestly presented guidance that respects your intelligence and supports your journey to better health through informed eating.
Questions about our process? We're always open to conversation.