Editorial Standards

This page documents the standards every page on GLP Agonists is held to: who writes, who reviews, what we will and will not publish, and how we handle the inevitable mistakes. If a page on this site fails any of these standards, that is a defect we want to know about.

What we publish

GLP Agonists publishes editorial coverage of GLP-1 receptor agonist medications and the U.S. telehealth providers that prescribe them. Coverage falls into seven categories:

Provider reviews — one ranked review per program, scored against a published five-pillar rubric (pricing, pharmacy, clinical oversight, patient experience, access)
Drug profiles — mechanism, indications, dosing, contraindications, side effects, drug interactions
Drug-vs-drug & provider-vs-provider comparisons
State and metro-level access guides
Patient-facing tools (cost calculators, BMI, dosing schedules)
Regulatory and policy news
Condition-specific guides (PCOS, sleep apnea, NAFLD, CV disease, T2D)

What we will not publish

Affiliate-funded "review" content presented as editorial
Generic "AI-generated" content not reviewed by a named human editor
Provider rankings determined by anything other than the published methodology
Efficacy claims for compounded preparations that the underlying clinical evidence does not support
Comparison content where the source data cannot be verified against a primary source
Off-label dosing recommendations — we describe FDA-approved dosing, but we do not write protocols
Anonymous author content

Who can write for GLP Agonists

Three categories of contributor:

Staff editors with documented health-journalism experience (currently: Amanda Chen, Maria Torres)
Licensed clinical reviewers with verifiable credentials (currently: Dr. Adam Kennah, MD; Dr. John Berg, PharmD)
Outside contributors with named bylines, declared affiliations, and editor sign-off on every piece

We do not publish ghostwritten content. We do not publish AI-only-generated content. Every page carries the name of the editor who wrote it and the clinical reviewer who fact-checked it.

The five-pillar methodology

Every provider review is scored against the same 14-point rubric, weighted toward what matters most for patient outcomes and financial protection:

Pillar	Weight	What we score
Pricing Transparency	25%	Flat-rate vs. titration-based, hidden fees, intro-rate disclosure, total annual cost
Pharmacy Sourcing	25%	503A/503B disclosure, USP testing standards, batch QC documentation
Clinical Oversight	20%	MD/DO involvement, NP/PA roles, intake-review depth, medical-necessity docs
Patient Experience	15%	Onboarding, ongoing support, side-effect management, cancellation terms
Access & Coverage	15%	State availability, HSA/FSA, eligibility breadth, BMI threshold

See the full methodology page for the 14-point sub-rubric, weighting math, and worked example.

Affiliate disclosure

GLP Agonists earns affiliate commissions when readers sign up through partner links. Affiliate links are marked rel="sponsored" per FTC 16 CFR Part 465. Rankings are determined by the published five-pillar methodology, not advertiser fees. We will not raise a provider's rank in exchange for affiliate revenue, and we will not lower a non-partner's rank to make a partner look better. Affiliate participation does not buy editorial favor.

Source verification

Three classes of source by descending priority:

Primary regulatory sources: FDA prescribing information, FDA Drug Safety Communications, FDA Drug Shortage Database, USP General Chapters, state board of pharmacy websites, peer-reviewed clinical trials, CMS coverage policies.
Primary provider sources: The provider's own patient-facing website (pricing, eligibility, pharmacy disclosure) verified on the date of citation.
Secondary sources: Major-outlet news coverage cited only when corroborated by a primary source we can link to.

We do not cite anonymous online forums as fact. We do not cite Reddit, Trustpilot star averages without sample size, or AI-summarized aggregators as primary sources.

Reviewer firewall

One of our clinical reviewers, Dr. Adam Kennah, MD, is also the Medical Director at NexLife — the program we ranked as 2026 Editor's Pick. This is a structural conflict of interest. We manage it three ways:

Dr. Kennah reviews clinical accuracy only: dosing, drug names, mechanisms, contraindications, FDA status. He has no input into rankings, comparison conclusions, or competitive language about NexLife vs. other providers.
The dual role is disclosed on every page that mentions NexLife favorably and on our conflicts of interest page.
Independent verification: clinical claims about NexLife are independently checked by Dr. John Berg, PharmD, who has no relationship with NexLife.

Errors & corrections

We will get things wrong. When we do, the correction is logged on our corrections page with date, the original error, and the verified replacement. We do not silently edit pages to fix factual mistakes; visible correction notes are added to the page in question.

Date stamps

Every page carries a "Last fact-checked" line with the reviewing clinician's name and a date. If a page is older than 90 days from its last review and contains pricing or regulatory claims, it is queued for re-review. Pricing claims older than 30 days are flagged for re-verification.

Reader feedback

If you spot a factual error, a stale price, a broken link, or a claim you can't verify against a primary source, email glpagonists@gmail.com with the URL and the issue. We acknowledge corrections within seven business days.

This editorial standards page is reviewed quarterly. Last reviewed: May 20, 2026.