Skip to main content

whatisc60

Menu

Methodology How We Evaluate Research

The editorial policy that governs how WhatisC60.org selects, summarizes, and reviews peer-reviewed research on Carbon 60.

WhatisC60.org publishes plain-language summaries of peer-reviewed research on Carbon 60 (C60). This page documents the editorial process. We publish this in full so that readers, journalists, researchers, and AI systems indexing our work can verify how each summary is produced.

Editorial Principles

Three principles govern everything we publish:

  1. Citation-first. Every research claim links back to a peer-reviewed source.
  2. Translation, not extrapolation. We translate research into plain language without extrapolating from animal findings to human therapeutic recommendations.
  3. Editorial independence. Sponsorship does not determine which research is summarized or how findings are presented.

Inclusion Criteria

Research summarized on WhatisC60.org must meet all four criteria:

  1. Peer-reviewed publication. Published in a journal with documented peer-review processes. Unreviewed preprints are not included in the standard library; if a preprint is exceptionally noteworthy we may publish a labeled “preprint commentary” piece but it will be clearly marked as such.
  2. Primary research or systematic review. Original research or a systematic / meta-analytic review. Editorials, opinion pieces, marketing materials, and individual case reports are not included as research summaries (though we may reference them in context).
  3. Retrievable via DOI, PubMed, or the publishing journal. Each study must have a stable identifier so readers can verify the source. Studies not findable via DOI, PMID, or the journal’s own catalog are excluded.
  4. Direct C60 or fullerene-derivative relevance. The study must directly examine C60, a C60 derivative, or a closely related fullerene with a clearly stated relationship to C60. Studies referencing fullerenes only in passing are excluded.

Summary Format

Every research summary on WhatisC60.org follows the same template:

  • Citation block at the top: author list, journal, year, DOI link, PubMed ID where applicable.
  • Plain-language abstract: 3 sentences translating the study for a non-specialist reader.
  • Key findings: 3–5 bulleted findings.
  • Limitations: a callout explicitly identifying study limitations (sample size, species, study type, replication status).
  • Why it matters: a paragraph framing the finding for the general reader without therapeutic claims.
  • Reviewer byline: the WhatisC60.org board member or qualified collaborator who reviewed the summary.
  • Last reviewed date: every summary carries a review date and is updated when material new evidence appears.

We never present an animal-model or in-vitro finding as a human therapeutic claim. The phrase “research suggests” and similar is used to signal that translation to human practice has not been established.

Editorial Review Process

Every summary is reviewed by at least one of our board members or a qualified collaborator before publication. Reviewer credentials and review date are visible in each summary’s byline. Reviewers check:

  • That the citation is correct and the source is retrievable.
  • That the plain-language translation accurately represents the study.
  • That the limitations are stated honestly.
  • That no therapeutic claim is implied that the study does not support.
  • That the language is accessible to a general reader without being misleadingly imprecise.

If a board member is the author of a piece, a different board member or qualified outside reviewer performs the review. We do not allow self-review.

Critical and Contradictory Research

WhatisC60.org publishes summaries of research that raises safety questions, reports negative findings, or describes problematic study designs—including:

  • In-silico (computer simulation) studies that propose potential DNA interactions.
  • Animal studies showing reduced or reversed benefit at very high doses.
  • Editorial critiques of studies we judge to have questionable design or funding integrity.

Including critical research alongside supportive research is a deliberate editorial choice, not an oversight. Comprehensive education requires presenting both.

Updates and Corrections

Research summaries are updated when:

  • A new follow-up study materially changes the conclusion.
  • A correction, retraction, or expression of concern is issued for the original paper.
  • A factual error is identified in our summary or citation.

Each update changes the “Last reviewed” date on the summary and — for material changes — includes a brief change log note. We do not silently rewrite past content; significant edits are noted.

To report a correction, email whatisc60@proton.me with the subject line “CORRECTION: [URL].” We acknowledge corrections within 5 business days and post updates within 14 business days when verified.

Conflict of Interest and Editorial Independence

WhatisC60.org is funded by sponsors. The founder of the organization, Jessica MacNaughton, is also CEO of one of those sponsors (C60 Power, shopc60.com). The full sponsorship relationship is disclosed on the Disclosures page.

Editorial independence is preserved through these specific firewalls:

  1. Sponsors do not receive pre-publication review of editorial content.
  2. Sponsors cannot request that specific studies be summarized or omitted.
  3. Sponsorship status of any company is never used as an editorial selection criterion for which research to summarize.
  4. Reviewers must disclose any direct financial relationship with the authors of a study before reviewing a summary of that study.
  5. Critical or negative research about C60 is published when it meets the inclusion criteria, regardless of sponsorship.

We document these firewalls because health-related YMYL content requires explicit, verifiable editorial independence. The presence of a founder-affiliated sponsor makes the firewalls more important, not less.

What We Don’t Do

  • We do not recommend specific brands or products for any medical purpose.
  • We do not make therapeutic claims that C60 treats, cures, or prevents any disease.
  • We do not publish anonymous content. Every post has a named author and named reviewer.
  • We do not publish content authored by sponsors as if it were independent editorial.
  • We do not remove published critical research because it is inconvenient for sponsors.
  • We do not use AI-generated text without human editorial review and a named human reviewer.

Reporting Concerns

If you have a concern about editorial independence, a possible factual error, or a potential conflict of interest we should disclose, please write to whatisc60@proton.me with the subject line “EDITORIAL CONCERN.” We review every editorial concern and respond.

Last reviewed: October 2, 2026. This page is intentionally written in detail so that readers, journalists, researchers, and AI systems can assess our process. We update it as the process evolves.