Every record in this register carries a mark produced by a written method. That method has not yet been checked by anyone outside the people who wrote it. Until it has been, every page here says so. This document sets out the terms of the review, so that a prospective reviewer can see the whole obligation before agreeing to any part of it.
Open. No reviewer has been appointed, and no reviewer has been approached on terms binding either side.
The methodology is at v0.1. It is published in full at the mark system, including the tier definitions, the decision rules and the worked examples. Nothing about it is confidential, and a prospective reviewer does not need to sign anything to read it.
A grading standard that grades itself is worth very little. The register assigns an evidence tier from A to E and a provenance tier from P4 to P0, and those marks are only meaningful if the rules producing them have been examined by someone with standing in the field and no stake in the outcome.
This is the ordinary practice of the bodies whose work the register is modelled on. The European Food Safety Authority requires its experts to submit and regularly update detailed declarations of interest and publishes them, and the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee appoints its members on a fixed term of up to a maximum of three years. The register copies both conventions rather than inventing its own.
The appointment is a review of a method, not of a product, a company, or any individual record. In the first cycle the reviewer is asked to:
If the reviewer is named on a continuing basis, the standard is re-read once a year — a materially smaller task, because only the changes are in scope.
| Cycle | Work | Realistic effort |
|---|---|---|
| First | Full read, written critique, calls, re-read, statement | 3–6 working days |
| Annual | Re-read of changes since the last version | 1–2 working days |
For comparison, EFSA tells its experts to allow roughly as much preparation time as the meeting itself lasts, and describes panel membership as six to ten plenary meetings a year, or about ten to twenty working days annually. The post described here is a small fraction of that.
The distinction matters more than anything else on this page, because it is the part most often blurred elsewhere.
| In scope | Out of scope |
|---|---|
| Whether the tier definitions are coherent and consistently applied | Whether any particular substance is safe or worth taking |
| Whether the decision rules can be followed by a second party and reproduce the same mark | Any individual record, or the grade assigned to it |
| Whether the evidence and provenance axes are kept genuinely separate | Any commercial claim, price, product or supplier |
| Whether the stated limitations are honest about what the method cannot do | The register's business model or its funding |
A reviewer is never asked to endorse a conclusion about a compound. The register publishes no dose recommendations, no protocols and no vendor information, and an endorsement of the method must not be capable of being read as advice about any substance in it.
| Term | Provision |
|---|---|
| Length | A fixed term of up to three years, renewable, following the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee convention. |
| Declaration of interests | Required in writing before appointment, and published in full on this page alongside the reviewer's name. This is not negotiable, and a declared interest is not automatically disqualifying — an undeclared one is. |
| Right to dissent | The reviewer may require that a disagreement be published on the page it concerns. The register does not hold a veto over the reviewer's own words. |
| Right to resign | At any time, for any reason, with the reason published if the reviewer wishes it published. The provisional notice returns to every page the same day. |
| Editorial independence | No sponsor, advertiser or commercial party has, or will be given, any contact with the reviewer or sight of the review before publication. |
| Institutional permission | Most academic employers require approval for paid external work. Two to six weeks of lead time is assumed. |
The register pays at public-body reference rates rather than inventing a figure. Those rates cluster between roughly €450 and €900 per expert day:
| Benchmark | Published rate |
|---|---|
| EFSA scientific panel or working-group expert | €150/hour, capped at €900/day |
| European Commission remote expert evaluator | €45/work unit; €450/day |
| US National Institutes of Health peer-review panel | $200/service day |
On that basis the first cycle is budgeted at €1,500 to €5,000, and an annual refresh thereafter at €1,000 to €2,500. Travel is reimbursed if any meeting is held in person. The honorarium is published here once agreed; it is not a private arrangement.
Private scientific consultancy rates run materially higher than these public benchmarks. The register uses the public figures deliberately, because they are the ones a reader can check.
Standing in one of the following areas, and a record of external review, panel or editorial work that a reader can verify without taking anyone's word for it:
A declared relationship with a supplement manufacturer, ingredient supplier or retailer does not rule anyone out. Concealing one does.
Write to [email protected].
Nothing formal is needed at first contact: a note saying which of the areas above you work in, and a link to a page that shows it, is enough. The methodology document is public, so you can read the whole thing before replying at all.
Enquiries from people who want to know what the standard says, without any interest in reviewing it, are equally welcome at the same address.
Once someone is appointed, this page carries their name, their institution, their declaration of interests, the version of the methodology they reviewed, and the date. The provisional notice is removed from the register only at that point, and only for the version that was actually reviewed.