Conflicts of interest
In short
Coloscopy.com is independent and ad-free. It accepts no advertising, no sponsored content, no affiliate revenue, no payment for placement, and no funding from manufacturers of medications, devices, or services that are discussed on the site. Reviewers disclose relevant interests during the review of each page.
What this page covers
How the site is funded, what it does and does not accept, how potential conflicts are identified during clinical review, and how a reader can raise a concern about apparent bias on a particular page.
How the site is funded
The site is supported by its publisher and is not a commercial venture. There is no advertising network, no programmatic advertising, and no display advertising of any kind. There are no sponsored articles, no advertorial, and no content paid for by a third party. There are no affiliate links — links to commercial products, where they appear, generate no revenue and are present only because the product is referenced for clarity (for example, a named bowel-prep brand discussed in plain language).
The site does not accept payments for placement of links, for inclusion of particular products in comparison tables, or for the promotion of any clinic, hospital network, telehealth service, screening programme, or device. We do not accept payment to write about a topic, to omit a topic, or to slant a topic.
If our funding model changes — for instance, if the site at some future point accepts grant funding from a non-commercial source, such as a foundation or a public health agency — the change will be disclosed on this page, with the date and the nature of the funding.
Reviewer conflicts of interest
Each clinical page on Coloscopy.com is reviewed by a clinician with relevant procedural experience before publication. Reviewers are asked, in writing, to disclose:
- Employment, consulting, or advisory relationships with manufacturers of bowel preparations, endoscopic devices, or sedation agents.
- Speaker honoraria or travel support from such manufacturers in the preceding three years.
- Equity holdings, royalties, or patent interests in relevant products.
- Research funding from industry sources for work referenced on the page they are reviewing.
- Personal relationships or roles that a reasonable reader might consider relevant to the page.
Where a reviewer discloses an interest that bears on the page they are reviewing, the editorial decision is one of three: to accept the review and record the disclosure, to seek an additional independent review, or to assign the review to a different reviewer. The default for any disclosed financial interest in a product the page evaluates is to seek a second, independent review.
We do not name reviewers or their disclosures on individual pages. The decision to keep individual review records private is for the same reason that journals frequently do — to protect reviewers from pressure, particularly from commercial parties whose products they have appraised. Aggregate practice is described here, and on editorial standards.
Editorial conflicts
The same disclosure expectations apply to anyone with editorial responsibility for the site. Editorial decisions are not made by anyone with a current financial interest in a manufacturer whose product is being evaluated on a page. Where a member of the editorial side of the site holds an interest that touches on a topic — for example, prior research collaboration with a guideline body — the page in question is reviewed by an external clinician who does not share that interest.
What we will not do
We will not write favourably about a product or service in exchange for any consideration. We will not allow a manufacturer to review a page for accuracy in a way that grants them effective editorial control. We will not remove or soften criticism of a product because the manufacturer has objected, except where the criticism is shown to be factually wrong, in which case the page is corrected through the ordinary corrections route.
We will not enter into linking arrangements, content syndication agreements, or co-marketing relationships with commercial entities whose products are within the scope of the site.
Standards we follow
Our approach is informed by the conflict-of-interest framework of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which sets out the categories of interest that authors and reviewers should disclose, and by the ethical principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (HON) regarding transparent disclosure of funding and editorial independence. These are the standards that mainstream medical publishing applies to itself; we apply them to a patient reference because the content carries comparable weight for the people who read it.
Common worries, briefly addressed
Why mention specific brand names at all if you have no commercial relationships?
Because patients receive prescriptions and instructions that use brand names. A page that referred only to generic active ingredients would be less useful in practice. We name brands where naming them helps a reader recognise what they have been given.
Could a reviewer's undisclosed interest still affect a page?
In principle, yes — every disclosure system depends on people answering honestly. The two safeguards are that disclosures are written and dated, and that any apparent bias on a particular page can be raised through editorial@coloscopy.com or corrections@coloscopy.com, which prompts a second review.
Is the site for sale?
No. If that ever changes, the change of ownership and any change to the funding or editorial model would be disclosed on this page.