How We Research & Score Products
A transparent look at the five-factor scoring system — what we measure, how we weight each criterion, how category-specific rubrics change the evidence we collect, and how editorial independence is handled.
Every product reviewed on Body Science Review is evaluated with a consistent five-factor scoring framework plus a category-specific rubric. The framework keeps scores comparable, while the rubric prevents supplement-only criteria from leaking into devices, wearables, sleep gear, or recovery equipment. Scores are weighted editorial calculations derived from documented evidence, product facts, and stated limitations — not paid placements.
The Five-Factor Scoring System
Each product receives a composite score on a 0–10 scale. The score is calculated by multiplying each criterion score (0–10) by its assigned weight, then summing the weighted values. These five criteria are fixed; the evidence collected under each criterion changes by category:
| # | Criterion | Weight | What We Evaluate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Evidence Quality | 30% | Strength and consistency of peer-reviewed research — RCT vs. observational support, effect sizes, independent replication, and whether findings apply to a general healthy-adult population. |
| 2 | Product Transparency | 25% | For supplements: full active ingredient forms/doses, formula match to cited evidence, allergen/filler disclosure, and COA or certification availability. For devices and gear: specifications, privacy details, warranty, return policy, and support terms. |
| 3 | Value | 20% | Cost per serving relative to ingredient quality and competitive alternatives. Premium pricing must be justified by premium inputs, certifications, or manufacturing standards — not brand recognition. |
| 4 | Real-World Performance | 15% | Synthesized user outcomes from verified purchase communities, documented long-form reviews, and published third-party hands-on assessments. We assess reported effectiveness over realistic trial periods (typically 4–12 weeks for supplements). |
| 5 | Third-Party Verification | 10% | Independent certification by NSF Certified for Sport, Informed Sport, USP Verified, Labdoor, or equivalent. Absence of certification is not penalized heavily in categories where it is uncommon, but presence earns a full score. |
| Composite Score | 100% | Sum of (criterion score × weight) across all five criteria. Reported as a single decimal figure on a 0–10 scale. | |
Score Formula
Composite = (Evidence × 0.30) + (Product Transparency × 0.25) + (Value × 0.20) + (Real-World × 0.15) + (Verification × 0.10)
Criterion Definitions in Detail
Evidence Quality 30%
The single highest-weighted criterion because supplement marketing consistently overstates evidence. We assess the research base on four dimensions:
- Study design: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) carry the most weight. Observational studies, case reports, and in-vitro data can support but not establish efficacy claims.
- Effect size: Statistical significance alone is insufficient. We note practical effect sizes and whether they are clinically meaningful.
- Replication: A finding from a single lab or industry-funded study scores lower than findings replicated across independent groups.
- Population fit: We flag when evidence comes primarily from clinical populations (e.g., elderly, diseased) and may not generalize to healthy active adults.
Sources used: PubMed, Examine.com, Cochrane Reviews, and published systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Ingredient Transparency 25%
A product cannot earn trust without full formula disclosure. We evaluate:
- No proprietary blends: Products hiding individual ingredient doses behind a blend name score 0 on this criterion unless they also publish independent lab verification.
- Clinical dosing: Ingredients present at sub-clinical doses — below the amounts used in the supporting studies — receive a penalty proportional to the gap.
- Label accuracy: Third-party certificate of analysis (COA) availability improves confidence that labeled amounts match actual contents.
- Filler and allergen disclosure: Unnecessary additives that contribute no benefit (artificial dyes, fillers present for manufacturing convenience) lower the score.
Value 20%
We calculate cost per serving and compare it against at least two to three competing products with similar formulations and certifications. Premium pricing is acceptable when justified by:
- Patented, standardized, or certified ingredient forms (e.g., KSM-66, Wellmune WGP, Creatine Monohydrate vs. creatine HCl at equivalent doses)
- Third-party certification overhead (NSF, Informed Sport)
- Responsible manufacturing standards (cGMP, FDA-registered facility)
Products where the price premium is driven primarily by branding, celebrity endorsement, or aggressive marketing score lower on Value regardless of other merits.
Real-World Performance 15%
Peer-reviewed evidence tells us what should happen; real-world signals tell us what does happen under typical conditions. We synthesize:
- Long-form verified-purchase reviews (Amazon, brand sites, Reddit communities)
- Documented user reports covering ≥4 weeks of use
- Published third-party hands-on testing where available
We do not conduct in-house lab testing. We are transparent about the basis for each assessment. Where real-world data conflicts with the published evidence, we note the discrepancy and explain likely causes (compliance, dosing, population differences).
Third-Party Verification 10%
Independent certification provides an accountability layer that the supplement industry otherwise lacks. Certifications we recognize:
- NSF Certified for Sport — tests for banned substances and label accuracy; required for many professional athletes
- Informed Sport / Informed Choice — batch-tested for WADA-prohibited substances
- USP Verified — independent testing for ingredient identity, potency, purity, and dissolution
- Labdoor — third-party lab testing with published grade reports
Absence of certification does not automatically lower a score to zero — many excellent products, particularly newer formulations or those from smaller manufacturers, have not pursued certification. However, the 10% weight means certified products will score up to 1 full point higher than uncertified equivalents, all else being equal.
Category-Specific Rubric Modules
The five scoring weights stay consistent, but the checklist underneath them changes by product type so an article about a smart scale never displays supplement-only criteria like extract standardization or effective dosing.
Supplements
- Active ingredient form, dose per serving, standardization, and dose/form match to the cited human evidence.
- COA availability, NSF/USP/Informed Sport/ConsumerLab/Labdoor or comparable verification, and cost per effective serving.
- Safety profile: contraindications, medication interactions, pregnancy/breastfeeding caution, upper limits, side effects, and long-term-use limitations.
Devices and Wearables
- Measurement repeatability, comparison to a reference method where available, setup notes, and realistic accuracy caveats.
- App quality, privacy notes, data export, connectivity, multi-user support, battery life, warranty, return policy, and support terms.
Recovery Gear and Sleep/Fitness Equipment
- Durability, comfort, setup difficulty, maintenance burden, safety warnings, noise where relevant, user fit constraints, independent testing, warranty, and returns.
How Scores Appear in Reviews
In every "best of" article, each reviewed product displays its G6 score as a breakdown table:
| Criterion | Weight | Score (0–10) | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence Quality | 30% | 9.0 | 2.70 |
| Ingredient Transparency | 25% | 9.5 | 2.38 |
| Value | 20% | 8.0 | 1.60 |
| Real-World Performance | 15% | 8.5 | 1.28 |
| Third-Party Verification | 10% | 9.0 | 0.90 |
| G6 Composite Score | 100% | — | 8.86 / 10 |
Score notes accompany each table to explain why a product scored as it did in each category — not just the final number.
Disclosure Policy & Editorial Independence
For current disclosure policy and editorial-independence details, see our disclosure page.
Article Updates
Supplement formulations change, new research publishes, and better products enter the market. We update our reviews and recalculate G6 scores when:
- A new RCT or meta-analysis materially changes the evidence base for an ingredient
- A product's formulation, dose, or certification status changes
- A new competitor earns a higher composite score and belongs in the rankings
- A reader submits a correction that is verified against primary sources
Updated articles display a "Last Updated" date. Corrections can be requested at hello@bodysciencereview.com.