Method Examined publishes independent research and analysis of self-development methods, coaching programs, seminars, retreats, courses, and transformational systems.
Our purpose is to help readers evaluate significant claims and expensive programs before making a decision.
This Editorial Policy explains how we research, write, evaluate evidence, handle affiliate relationships, and correct errors.
1. Editorial Independence
Our editorial conclusions are based on the information and evidence available to us.
Commercial relationships do not determine whether an article is positive or negative.
Method Examined may earn commissions through affiliate links, but affiliate partnerships do not guarantee favorable coverage.
We may criticize:
- claims;
- pricing;
- evidence;
- credentials;
- refund terms;
- marketing language;
- or other aspects of a program
even when that program offers an affiliate commission.
Likewise, we may describe useful features of programs with which we have no commercial relationship.
2. We Separate Claims From Evidence
One of our main editorial principles is distinguishing between different levels of support.
We try to make clear when something is:
- an official claim made by a program or teacher;
- a participant testimonial;
- a broadly accepted scientific finding;
- a plausible interpretation;
- preliminary research;
- a direct study of a specific method;
- or a conclusion supported by stronger independent evidence.
These categories should not be treated as interchangeable.
For example, evidence that meditation can influence brain activity does not automatically validate every scientific explanation used by a particular meditation program.
Similarly, evidence supporting cognitive reframing in psychology does not automatically validate every proprietary method involving reframing.
3. Primary Sources Come First for Basic Facts
Whenever practical, we use first-party sources to verify factual information about a program.
These may include:
- official program pages;
- official biographies;
- event pages;
- pricing pages;
- terms and conditions;
- refund policies;
- company materials;
- published interviews;
- and official support documentation.
We generally prefer the program’s own current materials when determining what it currently offers or claims.
Official sources are useful for establishing what a company says.
They are not automatically treated as independent evidence that those claims are true.
4. Independent Sources Are Used to Test Claims
Where relevant, we also examine independent sources such as:
- peer-reviewed research;
- academic institutions;
- professional registries;
- government resources;
- reputable journalism;
- consumer-protection resources;
- third-party reviews;
- participant discussions;
- podcasts;
- interviews;
- and books.
No single source type answers every question.
An official website may be the best source for today’s ticket price.
A university may be more appropriate for confirming a degree.
A peer-reviewed study may be more appropriate for evaluating a scientific claim.
A participant review may be useful for understanding an individual experience.
We try to use the source that fits the question.
5. Scientific and Psychological Claims Receive Extra Scrutiny
Self-development marketing frequently refers to neuroscience, psychology, neuroplasticity, trauma, epigenetics, hormones, the nervous system, quantum physics, or other scientific concepts.
We do not assume that using scientific terminology makes a claim scientifically established.
When evaluating these claims, we may examine:
- whether research exists;
- whether the research directly studied the method in question;
- sample size;
- control groups;
- randomization;
- outcome measures;
- replication;
- conflicts of interest;
- study limitations;
- and whether the conclusion being marketed is broader than the conclusion supported by the research.
Preliminary research is described as preliminary.
Observational research is not presented as randomized evidence.
Biological changes are not automatically treated as proof of clinical benefit.
6. Credentials Are Described Precisely
Professional titles can be confusing.
When credentials matter to an article, we try to identify the actual discipline in which a degree or professional qualification was earned.
For example, the title “Dr.” alone does not tell a reader whether someone is a:
- medical doctor;
- psychologist;
- chiropractor;
- academic Ph.D.;
- or holder of another doctoral qualification.
We avoid implying credentials that a person does not hold.
Additional study, professional experience, or independent research may be relevant, but it is distinguished from formal degrees and licensed professional specialties.
7. Testimonials Are Not Treated as Proof
Participant stories can be useful.
They can show how certain people experienced a program.
But testimonials cannot reliably establish:
- typical outcomes;
- success rates;
- causation;
- medical efficacy;
- or what a future participant should expect.
Official testimonials are also selected by the organization publishing them.
We therefore try to distinguish between individual experience and representative evidence.
8. Reviews Without Firsthand Participation
Method Examined does not claim firsthand experience when none exists.
Some articles are research-based reviews.
When we have not personally attended or purchased the program being reviewed, we state that clearly where appropriate.
Research-based reviews may use:
- official program information;
- current pricing;
- terms;
- published studies;
- participant reports;
- third-party sources;
- and comparison with available alternatives.
We do not fabricate attendance, conversations, outcomes, or personal experiences.
9. Prices and Program Details Can Change
Seminar prices, discounts, event schedules, refund terms, product contents, and promotional offers can change quickly.
When possible, we identify when time-sensitive information was reviewed.
A price mentioned in an article should not be assumed to remain available indefinitely.
Readers should verify current booking terms before making a purchase.
10. Affiliate Links and Commercial Relationships
Some Method Examined pages contain affiliate links.
If a reader purchases through an affiliate link, Method Examined may receive compensation at no additional cost to the reader.
Affiliate relationships are disclosed.
For more information about how affiliate relationships are disclosed, see our Affiliate Disclosure.
Affiliate compensation does not purchase:
- favorable conclusions;
- higher ratings;
- removal of criticism;
- suppression of competing products;
- or claims unsupported by evidence.
When appropriate, affiliate links are marked using standard sponsored-link attributes.
11. Artificial Intelligence
Method Examined may use artificial-intelligence tools to assist with tasks such as:
- organizing research;
- identifying questions to investigate;
- comparing information;
- drafting or editing text;
- and checking consistency.
AI-generated output is not treated as a factual source.
Claims published by Method Examined are supported by the underlying sources rather than by AI output itself.
The responsibility for the published article remains with Method Examined.
12. Conflicts of Interest
Potential conflicts of interest matter both in our own publishing and in research we evaluate.
When relevant, we may note financial, professional, or organizational relationships between:
- researchers;
- program creators;
- commercial providers;
- study funders;
- or other interested parties.
A conflict of interest does not automatically invalidate a claim or study.
It is context readers may reasonably want when evaluating the evidence.
13. Corrections
Accuracy matters more than defending a previous version of an article.
If we identify a factual error, we aim to correct it.
If new reliable evidence changes the appropriate conclusion, we may revise the article.
Minor wording or formatting changes may be made without a correction notice.
Material corrections may be noted when appropriate.
Readers who identify a possible error or significant missing context are encouraged to contact us.
14. What Our Articles Are Not
Method Examined provides research and educational information.
Our articles are not:
- medical advice;
- psychological diagnosis or treatment;
- legal advice;
- individualized financial advice;
- or a guarantee that any program will or will not produce a particular result.
Readers should seek appropriately qualified professional advice when their decision involves significant health, mental-health, legal, or financial consequences.
15. Our Standard
We do not require a program to agree with mainstream thinking in order to cover it fairly.
We also do not lower the evidentiary standard because a claim is inspiring, popular, profitable, or supported by compelling testimonials.
Our standard is straightforward:
Describe what is being claimed.
Verify what can be verified.
Examine the evidence.
Acknowledge uncertainty.
Give readers enough information to decide for themselves.
That is what Method Examined means by:
Big claims deserve a closer look.
Last updated: October 11, 2026