Funder policy

How we handle study funding, conflicts of interest, and industry-sponsored evidence. Last updated 2026-05-01.

The short version. Industry-funded studies are read, cited, and weighted — but they cannot, alone, promote a supplement to tier 1. Tier 1 requires at least one pivotal study with a public or nonprofit funder.

Funder types we recognise

TypeExamplesHow we treat it
Public NIH, NIA, NHLBI, Wellcome Trust, MRC (UK), VA, NIHR, EU Horizon, NSF, military research grants Counts toward the tier-1 citation gate. Highest weighting in scoring.
Nonprofit American Heart Association, ALS Association, MS Society, American Cancer Society, JDRF, foundation-funded research Counts toward the tier-1 citation gate. Weighted equally with public funding.
Mixed Public + industry co-funding where the public component is substantial and the industry sponsor did not control study design or analysis Counts toward the tier-1 gate only if the protocol explicitly limits sponsor involvement and an independent statistician analysed the data. Otherwise treated as industry.
Industry-sponsored Manufacturer, distributor, or retailer paid for the study, supplied product, or employed the principal investigator Cited and weighted. Does not satisfy the tier-1 gate alone. If industry studies are the only evidence base, the supplement is capped at tier 2 regardless of effect size.
Undisclosed Funding statement absent, ambiguous, or refuses to name a funder Cited only with a flag. Does not satisfy the tier-1 gate. We email the corresponding author and update the entry if a credible disclosure arrives.

What "industry-sponsored" actually means

A study is industry-sponsored if any of the following are true: a supplement manufacturer or distributor paid for the trial; a manufacturer supplied the active product without independent verification of identity, potency, and purity; a study author held equity, consulting fees, or a paid speakership with a manufacturer of the supplement under study within the prior three years; or the manufacturer had any control over study design, conduct, analysis, or publication.

Free product alone, with no other involvement, is borderline. We treat it as industry unless the protocol shows the product was independently sourced or assayed.

Worked examples

Example 1 — creatine monohydrate. Hundreds of pivotal trials, including dozens funded by NIH, the U.S. military's research grants, and university sports-medicine programs. Tier-1 gate satisfied many times over. Scored T1 (96/100).
Example 2 — a proprietary mushroom blend. All published trials are funded by the manufacturer, with the manufacturer supplying the product and analysing the data. Effect sizes look promising. Per this policy: capped at T2 until an independent group reproduces the effect with publicly-funded follow-up.
Example 3 — a polyphenol with mixed evidence. Three pivotal trials: one funded by NIA (positive), one funded by a beverage company (positive), one funded by a different beverage company (null). The NIA trial alone satisfies the gate. The industry trials are cited and discussed but the score is anchored to the public study.
Example 4 — a newly emerging peptide. Active manufacturer-sponsored research only. No PubMed-indexed independent trial. Per the gate: cannot enter tier 1 even if the manufacturer trials look strong. Currently sits at T3 with the gating reason explicitly logged.

Our own COI policy

SupplementScore is operated as a non-profit reference. We accept no funding from manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or affiliate programs. We do not run advertising. We do not earn commission on any product mentioned. Our hosting and tooling are paid for from individual reader donations and the operator's personal funds; both are disclosed annually in the About page transparency report.

Editorial staff disclose any holdings (equity, consulting, speakerships) related to the supplement industry within the prior three years. Anyone with active industry ties cannot author or second-read entries on supplements where the conflict applies.

How to flag a funding issue

If you believe we have mis-classified a study's funder, or missed a disclosed conflict, please report it via the accuracy-issue template. Funder reclassifications take priority and are typically actioned within one editorial cycle.

Related