Mycology Minded Mycelium & Mycology Get the Checklist

Compliance

Editorial Process

Last updated: May 27, 2026

This page documents how Mycology Minded researches, writes, fact-checks, reviews, publishes, updates, and corrects every piece of content on this site. It exists for two reasons: so readers know what standards we hold ourselves to, and because credibility in a category like supplements and psilocybin requires the work to be visible, not just claimed.

Sourcing standards

Every factual claim about a mushroom species, compound, dose, study result, or policy detail is linked to a primary source. In order of preference:

  1. Peer-reviewed research from indexed journals (PubMed, Cochrane, journal websites). This is the default and strongest source.
  2. Government and institutional documentation — FDA guidance, NIH research summaries, state program documents, U.S. Pharmacopeia monographs.
  3. Pre-print servers (bioRxiv, medRxiv) — cited only with the caveat that the work has not yet been peer-reviewed.
  4. Reputable journalism — cited only when it is itself reporting primary information (program launches, regulatory changes, court rulings). We link to the original government or institutional source where possible.
  5. Brand documentation — cited for facts about a specific product (extraction method, beta-glucan content, certificate of analysis), with skepticism applied to marketing claims.

What we do not use as citation sources: forum posts, Reddit threads, anonymous blog claims, supplement-brand marketing copy presented as fact, podcast clips without underlying citations, AI-generated summaries.

Health-claim language

We use the same language the published research uses: associated with, evidence suggests, clinical trials found, preliminary research indicates. We do not use cures, treats, prevents, or guaranteed-outcome framing. See the Medical Disclaimer for the full posture.

When evidence is preliminary, contested, or weak, we say so. A useful rule: if the evidence wouldn't survive a critical reader checking our sources, we either don't make the claim or we frame it as preliminary.

Product reviews

Product reviews follow a consistent 5-criterion evaluation:

  1. Source material — fruiting body vs mycelium grown on grain.
  2. Extraction method — hot water, alcohol, or dual extraction.
  3. Beta-glucan content — actual measured percentage from published certificate of analysis where available.
  4. Third-party testing — independent lab verification, publicly available COA.
  5. Price per gram of active compound — the only price metric that matters.

The review process:

  1. We acquire or examine the product (purchased on our own dime or evaluated based on publicly available documentation).
  2. We pull the certificate of analysis when the brand publishes one.
  3. We compare against peers in the same category on each of the five criteria.
  4. We write the review. The draft includes the criteria scoring, the comparative context, and an honest verdict.
  5. We do not share drafts with brands before publication. We do not allow brands to pre-approve coverage.
  6. After publication, brands are welcome to submit factual corrections via the contact form. We will correct factual errors and note the correction at the top of the article.

We do not accept "products for review" in exchange for guaranteed positive coverage. If a brand sends a product, the review proceeds on the same criteria as any other and may be unfavorable.

Affiliate relationships and editorial independence

Mycology Minded participates in affiliate programs with several supplement brands, cultivation retailers, and psilocybin-adjacent education providers. Editorial coverage is not for sale. Specifically:

  • A brand cannot pay to be reviewed.
  • A brand cannot pay to be ranked higher in a "best of" listicle.
  • A brand cannot pay to remove or modify negative coverage.
  • A brand's status as an affiliate partner does not affect their evaluation against the 5-criterion review process.
  • Affiliate partners that score poorly will be ranked accordingly — and that has already happened in our coverage.

Every article that contains affiliate links carries an above-the-fold disclosure callout. Every page on the site links to the Affiliate Disclosure in the footer.

Author attribution and contributor bylines

Every article carries a byline naming the author. Currently every article is written by Harrison Ford (author page). As we add contributors, each will have their own author page with credentials, bio, and contact information. Where appropriate, we list contributors who provided fact-checking, research assistance, or subject-matter review at the end of the article.

Medical review

For articles that cross into health-claim territory, we engage an outside reviewer with relevant credentials (naturopath, registered dietitian, MD, doctor of chiropractic, or doctor of natural medicine, depending on subject matter) to review the draft before publication.

When an article has been medically reviewed, the byline includes: "Medically reviewed by [Name, Credentials] on [Date]." The reviewer's role is to flag inaccurate claims, missing context, or language that overstates the evidence. The reviewer does not write the article, does not have editorial control over the final voice, and is disclosed publicly. We pay outside reviewers a flat per-article fee. We do not accept reviewers who hold ownership stakes in brands we cover.

Fact-checking

Before publication, every article goes through a fact-check pass against the original sources cited. Specifically:

  • Every quoted study claim is verified against the actual study (not the press release or secondary summary).
  • Every dose, percentage, or statistic is verified against the source.
  • Every policy or legal claim is verified against the underlying statute, regulation, or government document.
  • Every product claim is verified against publicly available brand documentation or published lab results.

When we cannot independently verify a claim, we either remove it or mark it explicitly as unverified.

Updates and corrections

The supplement and psilocybin policy landscapes change quickly. We treat published articles as living documents.

Routine updates — when new research is published or a state's legal status changes, the relevant article is updated and the "Last updated" date at the top is revised. Substantive updates are noted in an "Updated on [date] — [what changed]" line beneath the byline.

Corrections — when we discover a factual error in published work, we:

  1. Correct the article.
  2. Add a "Corrected on [date] — [brief description]" note immediately beneath the byline.
  3. If the error was material to a reader's decision-making (a wrong dose, a misstated study result, a wrong legal status), we publish a separate correction note in the next newsletter issue.

We do not quietly edit history. Old versions of significantly revised articles are kept on file and available on request.

Conflicts of interest

If anyone working on Mycology Minded has a financial relationship with a brand or product being covered that goes beyond the standard affiliate program disclosed publicly, that relationship is disclosed in the article itself.

If the founder ever launches a supplement product line of his own, every page of Mycology Minded that mentions any product in the same category will disclose that relationship prominently above the fold.

Reader feedback

Spotted an error? Have a citation that contradicts something we've published? Want to nominate a product for review or a topic for coverage? Contact us. We read every message. Corrections are a top-priority response category.