Editorial policy | Zellaforte
These standards govern new and substantially revised Zellaforte guides from the publication of this policy. When an older article is substantially revised, these standards apply to that revision. A missing specialist-review credit does not establish that a specialist has reviewed an article.
Purpose and responsibility
Our guides help readers understand ingredients, labels and research. They do not provide a personal diagnosis or replace medical advice. Zellaforte publishes and sells products; its guides are brand-published content, not independent product tests.
The editorial byline is Zellaforte Redaktion. Winston Schultze is responsible for editorial approval. We name other contributors according to the work they have actually done.
Sources and evidence
For scientific statements, we prefer original studies, systematic reviews, public authorities and relevant professional guidance. We link the source used and explain material limitations. Supplier information is identified as such and distinguished from independent evidence.
When discussing a study, we check what was investigated: the ingredient or finished formulation, the amount, participants, duration and measured outcome. Where relevant, we identify funding or author affiliations. A laboratory measurement, participant questionnaire and clinical outcome are different kinds of evidence.
A study of an ingredient does not automatically establish an effect of the finished Zellaforte product. Evidence and the permission to use a commercial health statement are separate questions.
Product information
Composition, serving instructions, suitability and warnings are checked against the applicable product documents. Product pages hold the detailed product information; a guide links to them rather than maintaining another full copy of the formula. Contradictions are investigated before the affected statement is approved.
Editorial, compliance and scientific review
Editorial review checks clarity, usefulness, sources and product references. Compliance and quality-assurance review checks the statements within the reviewer’s remit. Questions outside that remit require a person with the relevant expertise.
An article receives a named review credit only after the reviewer has approved the identified version within a documented scope. We state the person’s actual role. The recorded scope includes the language reviewed; translations do not automatically inherit specialist approval. A doctor or other specialist is not credited merely because they are available to advise the brand. Pending review is not presented as completed review, and an AI assessment is not a human specialist review.
AI assistance
We use AI tools to support research, outlines, drafting, translation and editing. AI output can contain errors, including incorrect citations. Named sources and product information therefore need checking; an AI-generated reference is not evidence by itself.
People remain responsible for publication decisions. Where AI has substantially assisted an article, we disclose that contribution in a short note. We do not invent authors, professional qualifications, studies, customer experiences or review dates.
Dates and corrections
A publication date records the first publication of a contribution. A modification date records a substantive change. A specialist-review date records the actual review of that version. We do not refresh dates solely to make unchanged content appear new.
To flag a possible error, email info@zellaforte.de with the article URL, the disputed passage and, if available, a source. We check the report against the relevant documents and record substantive corrections with a date and explanation. A change to a health statement requires review of the affected text before it is republished.
