How does Longevity Science Daily evaluate research quality?

We use a four-tier evidence classification system. Tier 1 includes systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large RCTs from major journals. Tier 2 includes peer-reviewed observational studies and smaller RCTs. Tier 3 includes expert reviews and consensus statements. Tier 4 (flagged appropriately) includes commercial sources and preliminary data.

Does Longevity Science Daily use AI to write content?

We use AI as a research assistant to process papers, identify patterns, and organize information. All content is written, fact-checked, and edited by humans. Every claim is verified against primary sources. AI accelerates our research but does not replace human judgment.

Does Longevity Science Daily sell supplements or products?

No. We do not sell supplements, health products, or have affiliate relationships with supplement companies. Our only goal is to help readers understand the science so they can make informed decisions with their healthcare providers.

How often does Longevity Science Daily update its content?

We review articles at least annually and update them when significant new research emerges. Each article displays its publication date and last reviewed date. If we make substantive changes, we note this in an update log.

← Back to Home

Editorial Standards

Our commitment to rigorous, transparent science communication.

Our Mission

Longevity Science Daily exists to bridge the gap between current aging research and the people who can benefit from it. We translate complex science into clear, actionable insights without oversimplifying or sensationalizing.

We believe readers deserve access to nuanced, evidence-based information, not marketing disguised as science. Our goal is to help you understand what research actually shows so you can have informed conversations with your healthcare providers.

Evidence Classification System

Not all research is created equal. We classify sources by quality to help readers understand the strength of evidence behind each claim.

Tier 1

Highest Quality Evidence

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Cochrane, major journals)
• Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs with n>100)
• Government and institutional guidelines (NIH, WHO, CDC, NICE)
• Top-tier peer-reviewed journals (NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, Nature, Cell, BMJ)

Tier 2

Strong Quality Evidence

• Peer-reviewed observational studies (prospective cohorts, case-control)
• Smaller RCTs in peer-reviewed journals
• Specialized medical journals (BJSM, Age and Ageing, Aging Cell, etc.)
• Academic institution publications (Harvard Health, Mayo Clinic)

Tier 3

Supporting Evidence

• Narrative reviews in peer-reviewed journals
• Expert consensus statements
• Established scientific organizations' position papers
• Animal and in vitro studies (clearly labeled as such)

Tier 4

Context Only (Flagged)

• Commercial health websites and lab reference guides
• News articles about research (we link to original study instead)
• Preprints (not yet peer-reviewed)
• Expert opinion without supporting data

When we cite Tier 4 sources, we clearly label them and explain why they're included.

Our Research Process

1. Primary Source Requirement

We read original research papers, not summaries of summaries. When citing a study, we link directly to the peer-reviewed publication (PubMed, journal website, or DOI) whenever possible. If the full paper is behind a paywall, we still read it and provide the best available link.

2. Study Quality Assessment

For each study we cite, we consider:

Study design: RCT vs. observational vs. animal/cell study
Sample size: Large enough to detect meaningful effects?
Duration: Long enough to observe relevant outcomes?
Population: Who was studied? Does it generalize?
Funding source: Potential conflicts of interest?
Replication: Have findings been confirmed by independent groups?

3. Handling Conflicting Evidence

Science rarely offers simple answers. When studies conflict, we:

Present both sides fairly
Explain possible reasons for discrepancy (methodological differences, populations studied, etc.)
Give more weight to higher-quality, more recent, and more replicated findings
Clearly state when “the evidence is mixed” or “more research is needed”

4. Effect Size in Context

We prioritize absolute numbers over dramatic-sounding relative changes:

Bad: “500% increased risk!”
Better: “Risk increased from 1 in 10,000 to 5 in 10,000”
Best: “5 additional cases per 10,000 people over 10 years, compared to [reference risk]”

AI Usage Policy

We use AI as a research assistant, not as the author.

AI tools help us:

Process and summarize large volumes of research papers
Identify patterns across multiple studies
Organize complex information
Draft initial outlines (which are then substantially rewritten)

What AI does NOT do:

Make final decisions about what claims to include
Determine evidence quality classifications
Write medical recommendations
Replace human fact-checking of every claim

Every article is written, fact-checked, and edited by humans with domain knowledge. We verify every claim against primary sources. We add nuance where AI oversimplifies. We bring skepticism where AI accepts at face value.

Fact-Checking Process

Before publication, every article goes through:

Source verification: Every cited claim is traced back to its primary source. We verify that the source actually says what we're claiming.
Study quality check: We assess whether the cited studies are appropriate for the claims being made (e.g., not using mouse studies to support human dosing recommendations).
Accuracy review: Statistical claims, dosages, and technical details are double-checked against original sources.
Context check: We ensure claims aren't taken out of context and that important caveats are included.
Editorial review: Final review for clarity, accuracy, and appropriate hedging of uncertain claims.

Conflict of Interest Policy

We do not sell supplements, health products, or have affiliate relationships with supplement companies.

Our only revenue comes from:

Newsletter subscriptions (free and potentially paid tiers in the future)
No current advertising or sponsorships

If this ever changes, we will clearly disclose any financial relationships that could influence our content. We believe transparency about potential conflicts is essential for trust.

Corrections Policy

We take accuracy seriously. When we make mistakes:

Minor corrections (typos, broken links, clarifications) are fixed directly with an updated “last reviewed” date.
Substantive corrections (factual errors, misrepresented studies) are noted at the top of the article with a clear correction notice and date.
Major retractions (fundamental errors that undermine the article's conclusions) result in a prominent notice and either substantial revision or removal.

To report an error or suggest a correction, please email hello@longevitysciencedaily.com. We appreciate readers who help us maintain accuracy.

Content Freshness

Medical and scientific knowledge evolves. We commit to:

Reviewing each article at least annually
Updating articles when significant new research emerges
Clearly displaying publication and “last reviewed” dates on every article
Noting substantial updates in an update log when applicable

If you notice an article with outdated information, please let us know.

What We Are Not

We are not medical professionals. Our content is educational, not medical advice. Always consult your healthcare provider before making health decisions.
We are not a peer-reviewed journal. While we strive for accuracy and cite peer-reviewed sources, we are a science communication publication, not an academic journal.
We are not infallible. Despite our best efforts, we may make mistakes. We welcome corrections and continuously work to improve.

Questions or Feedback

We welcome questions about our editorial process, suggestions for improvement, and corrections. Contact us at hello@longevitysciencedaily.com.

← Explore Our Articles