Review Guidelines & Methodology
How we research, evaluate, and recommend substances and products — and the standards we hold ourselves to.
Our Reviewer
Erik Abramowitz, FNTP
Every substance monograph and product review on this site is researched, tested, and written by Erik — a certified FNTP and holistic nutritional therapy practitioner with years of experience in functional nutrition and cognitive optimization.
Substance Evaluation Criteria
When evaluating a nootropic substance, we assess the following dimensions:
Clinical Evidence
Quality and quantity of peer-reviewed human trials. We prioritize RCTs and meta-analyses over animal or in-vitro studies.
Mechanism of Action
How well the compound's mechanism is understood. Well-characterized pathways increase our confidence in efficacy claims.
Safety Profile
Known side effects, drug interactions, and long-term safety data. We flag substances with limited safety research.
User Experience
Real-world reports from our own testing and community feedback. Subjective effects are noted separately from clinical data.
Dosing Clarity
Whether effective doses are well-established in the literature and practically achievable with available products.
Regulatory Status
Whether the substance is DSHEA-compliant, requires research-use-only framing, or has regulatory concerns.
Product Review Criteria
When reviewing specific products, we evaluate:
- Ingredient quality — branded/patented ingredients, bioavailable forms, effective dosages
- Label transparency — no proprietary blends, clear dosing, accurate ingredient list
- Third-party testing — independent COAs, heavy metal testing, purity verification
- Manufacturing standards — GMP certification, NSF or USP verification when applicable
- Value — cost per effective serving relative to alternatives
- Company reputation — track record, customer service, return policy
Rating Scale
Products are rated on a 1–5 scale:
- 5 — Excellent: Best-in-class. Exceptional quality, transparent label, strong evidence base, and great value.
- 4 — Very Good: High quality with minor drawbacks. Recommended for most people.
- 3 — Average: Decent option but notable limitations. Better alternatives may exist.
- 2 — Below Average: Significant concerns with quality, dosing, or value.
- 1 — Not Recommended: Serious quality, safety, or transparency issues.
Editorial Independence
Our reviews are editorially independent. We may earn affiliate commissions on recommended products (see our Affiliate Disclosure), but commission rates never influence scores or recommendations. We have given poor ratings to products with active affiliate relationships.
Corrections & Updates
Science evolves, and so does our content. We regularly update substance monographs and product reviews as new research emerges. All articles include a "last updated" date. If you spot an error, please contact us.
FDA Disclaimer
Important: The statements on this site have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Products and substances discussed are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Content is for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice.
Certain research compounds discussed on this site are sold for research purposes only and are not intended for human consumption. These are clearly labeled with appropriate disclaimers.