Editorial independence

WeighLossCompare operates editorially independent of all entities it audits. No audited site — and no underlying GLP-1 telehealth provider — has any role in the audit’s scoring, in the publication’s editorial direction, or in the selection of which sites are audited. The publication does not accept advertising, affiliate revenue, sponsored content, or commercial consideration in any form from audited entities.

Scoring protocol

Each site is scored against the published six-criterion rubric by two physicians independently. Scorers do not see one another’s scores. Discrepancies above a four-point threshold on any single criterion trigger adjudication by the editor, who issues a binding final score with a written rationale appended to the audited site’s review page.

The audit’s inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s kappa) is published with the methodology and is recalculated on every quarterly re-audit. The current value is 0.82.

Primary-source standard

Every clinical or regulatory claim made on this site that is reasonably challengeable must trace to a primary source — FDA prescribing information, a PubMed-indexed clinical trial, a state pharmacy board registry, or equivalent. We do not cite secondary aggregators in lieu of primary sources. Where a claim is editorial opinion rather than empirical, the language must make that distinction clear.

Conflicts of interest

The three editorial board members — Dr. Vartanian, Dr. Alex M., and Dr. Thrush — have, individually and collectively, the following declared relationships to entities audited in this publication:

None of us has accepted payment, advertising, traffic, or commercial consideration from any audited site.

None of the editorial board members consults for, advises, holds equity in, or accepts speaking honoraria from any GLP-1 telehealth provider, compounding pharmacy, or comparison publication. None of the board members has clinical employment with an entity that is audited or that owns an audited entity.

The publication’s operating costs are met by the editorial board. There are no investors, no parent organization with commercial interests in the audited category, and no third-party funding. If any of the above changes at any future date, the change will be disclosed on this page within seven days, on every audit page on which it is relevant, and noted in the public corrections log on the date of the change.

Right of reply

Every audited site has a documented right of reply. The protocol is:

  1. Pre-publication notice. Each audited site was contacted at the editorial address listed on its own publication (or, where no such address existed, at its WHOIS-registered contact) between May 10 and May 18, 2026, with a summary of the scoring decisions and an invitation to respond.
  2. Inline response. Responses received are quoted in full on the relevant review page. Where the audited site disputes a specific scoring decision, the dispute is published alongside our rationale.
  3. Score challenge. An audited site may, at any time after publication, submit a written challenge to a score by emailing weighlosscompare@gmail.com with the subject line “Score challenge: [site name].”
  4. Adjudication. The editor reviews the challenge and issues a written response within fourteen days. The response is published on the audited site’s review page and logged in the corrections log. Where a score revision is warranted, the revision is issued with a published rationale and a versioned change.

Corrections policy

Corrections are issued publicly. The corrections log is a permanent, dated, append-only record. Each correction lists the original claim, the corrected claim, the date the correction was issued, the page on which the correction was made, and the criterion under which the correction was issued. Material corrections to scoring trigger a methodology-version note where the underlying issue affects the rubric’s reproducibility.

AI usage disclosure

The audit’s scoring decisions are made by the named human physicians on the editorial board. AI tools may be used by the editorial board for non-scoring tasks: copy editing, fact-checking against primary sources, schema validation, and accessibility checks. Any AI-generated text that appears in published content is reviewed and approved by the byline author. AI is not used to score audited sites, to write conflict-of-interest disclosures, or to draft adjudication rationales.

Versioning

This is version 1.0 of the editorial standards, published May 21, 2026. Material revisions will be versioned and dated. Previous versions remain accessible at the appropriate version-suffixed URL.

Contact

All editorial correspondence: weighlosscompare@gmail.com

Subject-line conventions: