Our Sourcing Standards
We are committed to transparency, accuracy, and integrity in every piece of content we publish. This page explains how we source, verify, and present information to our community.
Trust is earned through consistent adherence to editorial principles and open disclosure of our methods.
The information on this site is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.
Our Content Sources
Peer-Reviewed Research
We prioritize scientific literature published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Our team reviews abstracts and full articles from databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, and institutional libraries. We assess study methodology, sample size, funding sources, and publication dates to ensure current, rigorous evidence. When citing research, we include direct links and DOI numbers whenever possible for reader verification.
Government & Regulatory Agencies
We consult official guidelines from recognized health authorities including the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Thai Ministry of Public Health, and relevant international bodies. We distinguish between official recommendations, provisional guidance, and emerging areas of research. Government sources provide evidence-based dietary guidelines, food safety information, and public health data that inform our content.
Industry & Professional Bodies
We reference position statements and practice guidelines from established professional organizations in nutrition and wellness fields. These bodies compile evidence-based recommendations developed by practitioners with advanced credentials. We verify that any organization cited maintains transparent membership standards, ethical codes, and regular updates to their guidance based on emerging science.
Academic Institutions
Research from accredited universities, medical schools, and nutrition programs provides credible foundational knowledge. We reference studies and reviews from departments with established reputations in nutrition science and public health. University-based research is subject to institutional review boards and ethical oversight, adding a layer of credibility to the work we cite.
Scientific Review & Meta-Analyses
We favor systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize evidence from multiple studies rather than relying on single studies. These comprehensive analyses provide stronger evidence by combining results across research. We note when evidence is emerging, limited, or conflicting, and we update content as new research becomes available and undergoes peer review.
Community & Real Experiences
We document real experiences and feedback from our community members. These personal stories are labeled clearly as individual accounts, not medical evidence. They complement scientific information by showing how concepts apply in daily life. We never present anecdotes as substitutes for research, but rather as lived context that illustrates research findings.
Our Verification Process
Source Identification & Evaluation
Our editorial team identifies potential sources and assesses their credibility. We examine author credentials, institutional affiliations, publication venue, peer-review status, and date of publication. We check for obvious conflicts of interest, funding sources, and whether the source has been cited by other reputable publications. Sources must meet established criteria before inclusion in our content.
Content Review & Fact-Checking
Before publication, content undergoes internal review by team members with relevant expertise. We verify all claims against source material, check that citations are accurate and current, and confirm that data is interpreted correctly. We cross-reference information across multiple sources to identify consensus or areas of disagreement in the evidence base.
Transparency & Attribution
Every factual claim in our articles is attributed to a source. We include citations, links, and publication details so readers can locate original material independently. When information comes from personal interviews or community contributions, we clearly identify it as such. We distinguish between established science, current recommendations, and areas where experts disagree.
Ongoing Updates & Corrections
Science evolves, and so does our content. We regularly review published articles to ensure information remains current and accurate. When new research emerges that contradicts or updates previous guidance, we revise content accordingly. If an error is identified, we make corrections promptly, document the change, and notify readers when significant revisions occur.
Our Disclosure Policy
What We Disclose
External Relationships & Partnerships
If Customnutritionpath has a business relationship with an organization we reference, we clearly state this relationship. This includes sponsored content, affiliate partnerships, or revenue-sharing arrangements. Readers deserve to know if we have financial interest in recommendations or links we provide.
Author Credentials & Expertise
Each article includes author credentials and relevant experience. We identify subject-matter experts by their qualifications, publications, and professional background. Readers can assess credibility and see that content is written by knowledgeable contributors, not anonymous sources.
Publication & Update Dates
We display the original publication date and the date of any significant updates. This helps readers understand how current information is and whether recent developments might have changed recommendations or evidence.
Limitations & Uncertainties
When evidence is limited, conflicting, or applies only to specific populations, we say so explicitly. We explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and where expert opinion differs. We avoid overstating the strength of findings or applying narrow research to broader claims.
Edits & Corrections
When we make substantive corrections or significant updates to published articles, we document these changes. Readers are informed if previously published information has been revised to reflect newer evidence or to correct errors.
What We Do Not Do
- We do not accept payment or gifts from companies in exchange for favorable coverage or placement of their products in our content.
- We do not remove or bury information because it conflicts with a partner's interests or our own preferences.
- We do not present personal opinions or anecdotal experiences as scientific evidence.
- We do not hide source material or make claims that readers cannot independently verify.
- We do not cherry-pick data or cite outdated research when newer evidence contradicts it.
Frequently Asked Questions
We use a multi-point evaluation system. Sources must come from established institutions (universities, government agencies, professional organizations), undergo peer review or editorial oversight, have transparent authorship and funding, and be current or explicitly historical. We also check whether a source has been widely cited by other reputable publications, which is a sign of credibility in the scientific community. No single source is perfect, so we triangulate across multiple sources to identify consensus.
Questions About Our Sources?
If you have questions about how we source information, want to suggest a source, or have found an error, we encourage you to reach out. Your feedback helps us maintain high editorial standards and serve our community better.