Editorial Standards

Last reviewed: July 2026 · Reviewed by Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, Founder, Biohack Blueprint

Every article published on Biohack Blueprint follows the same editorial process, regardless of the product or topic being covered. This page describes that process in detail so that readers can evaluate the quality and independence of our work.

Named authorship

Every article is written by a named physician who is accountable for the content. We do not publish anonymous articles, use pen names, or attribute content to "the editorial team." The author's real name and credentials appear at the bottom of every article.

Our primary author is Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, a practising physician with clinical experience in intensive care and preventive medicine. He has spent years studying the primary literature on longevity, NAD⁺ metabolism, senescence, and the pharmacology of ageing. More about Dr. Mahmoud and the story behind the site is on our About page.

Medical peer review

Every article is independently reviewed by a member of our Medical Advisory Board before publication. Reviewers are practising clinicians or clinical researchers whose names and credentials appear on the published page.

The review process evaluates:

• Factual accuracy — are the claims supported by the cited sources?
• Evidence quality — are the cited studies appropriate (RCTs > observational > preclinical)?
• Clinical relevance — are the dosing, safety, and interaction recommendations practical and responsible?
• Balance — does the article fairly represent both the strengths and limitations of the evidence?

If a claim cannot be supported by the cited evidence, it is removed or rewritten before publication. The reviewer's name on the page means they are personally satisfied that the content meets our evidence standard.

Reviewer assignment is decided by subject-matter fit — the reviewing physician's clinical training must match the substantive claims of the article. Dr. Abdulla Mostafa reviews neuroscience, cognitive, and neurological content. Dr. Amr Nassar reviews surgical, cardiometabolic, musculoskeletal, and general internal medicine content. Articles that cross both domains may carry both bylines.

Citation policy

Every factual claim on Biohack Blueprint links to its primary source — the published study, systematic review, or meta-analysis that supports it. We link to PubMed entries, DOIs, or full-text papers whenever possible.

We do not cite:

• Press releases or manufacturer claims as evidence
• Other supplement review websites as primary sources
• Social media posts, podcasts, or influencer opinions
• Animal studies without clearly labelling them as preclinical

When we reference preclinical (animal or cell culture) research, we label it explicitly. We do not imply that preclinical results will necessarily translate to humans. When human evidence is absent, we say so.

Where a study is a preprint — a paper posted publicly but not yet peer-reviewed — we flag that fact in the body of the article at the point the claim is made, not only in the reference list.

Evidence hierarchy

We assess evidence quality using a standard hierarchy:

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (highest quality)
2. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in humans
3. Non-randomised human studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional)
4. Preclinical studies (animal models, cell culture)
5. Mechanistic reasoning and expert opinion (lowest quality)

When a product's evidence base consists primarily of preclinical data, we state this clearly and avoid implying clinical efficacy. Readers deserve to know the difference between "this worked in mice" and "this worked in a human RCT."

Strengths and limitations are stated in the same paragraph, at the same hierarchy — never a strong efficacy claim in the body and a caveat buried in a footer. Where a manufacturer's marketing overstates the evidence, our review says so directly.

Our approach to selecting which products to review, and to comparing their dose against the trial evidence, is documented in full on our Methodology page.

Financial disclosure

Biohack Blueprint earns a commission when readers purchase products through our affiliate links or use our discount code. This is disclosed on every product review. We do not accept payment, free products, or any other form of compensation from brands in exchange for coverage.

Our editorial content is produced independently of our affiliate relationships. The research comes first; the revenue follows. If we believe a product is not supported by adequate evidence, we say so — even if it reduces our commission income.

We believe full transparency about our financial model is essential to maintaining reader trust. The commercial arrangement with DoNotAge; including why we describe it as a partnership rather than a sponsorship — is documented in full on our Affiliate Disclosure and Partnership page. Reader-facing detail on the code itself is on our DoNotAge Discount Code page.

If you have questions about our disclosure practices, contact us through our Contact page.

Corrections policy

We are committed to accuracy. If a factual error is identified in a published article — whether by a reader, a board member, or the author — we correct it promptly and transparently.

• Minor corrections (typos, formatting) are made silently.
• Factual corrections (updated data, revised claims) are noted at the top of the article with the date of correction.
• Major revisions (changes to recommendations or conclusions) trigger a full re-review by the Medical Advisory Board.

To report an error, contact the editorial team through with a link to the article and a description of the issue.

Independence and scope

The rules above apply to every article without exception. We do not maintain a separate standard for reviews of DoNotAge products, for comparison articles that name competing brands, or for content commissioned in response to reader questions. The same authorship, review, citation, and correction rules govern everything published on this site.

Our position on what our reviews are — and what they are not — is set out in our Medical Disclaimer. In short: our reviews are editorial content, not personal medical advice, and are not a substitute for consultation with your own clinician.