A linked paper is not an endorsement of your product

Identify the store's claim before evaluating the citation

Copy the sentence beside the citation, its heading and the product it refers to. Include the wording on the link and any nearby caption or callout. Record whether the store is describing a publication's subject, asserting a property of the item for sale, or suggesting that the authors or institution endorse it. Those are different statements, even if they all point to the same paper.

The FTC's US truth-in-advertising guidance requires truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated advertising across media, including websites. Use that principle to assess the merchant's statement rather than assuming an academic link exempts it from scrutiny. A paper can be relevant to a topic while leaving a claim about a particular commercial item unsubstantiated.

Read what the publication actually covers

Identify the publication by title, authors, publication date and official location or persistent identifier. Read the part the merchant relies on and enough surrounding material to understand its scope. Record the subject examined, the finding being cited and the limitations that affect the proposed statement. Use a short accurate summary in the worksheet, not copied research instructions or long source passages.

Keep the authors' finding separate from the store's paraphrase. Look for changes in certainty, breadth or subject between them. A sentence that converts a limited observation into a general assurance is an added inference that needs its own support. The purpose of this comparison is to find that extension, not to conduct a scientific review or declare the publication valid.

If only a title or abstract is available, mark the unexamined material as unexamined. A title cannot establish what the full publication says about a limitation or product relationship. Obtain the relevant text through an authorized route or hold the claim pending review; do not reconstruct it from the product description that already relies on it.

Trace the connection to the item being offered

Compare the subject identified in the publication with the merchant's item. Record any actual link to the supplier, item identifier or batch only when the underlying documents establish it. Similar naming is a starting point for investigation, not evidence that the authors assessed the goods now offered by the store. If there is no documented connection, state that explicitly in the internal comparison.

Then ask what the commercial claim requires that connection to establish. Background discussion of a subject, a finding about material examined in the paper, a quality claim about the merchant's goods and an endorsement by the authors each have a different scope. A publication's existence alone cannot supply all four. Do not describe a citation as an endorsement unless there is separate evidence for the endorsement being asserted.

A product report and a scientific publication also answer different questions. Matching a report to an item does not automatically make a linked paper support every statement about that item. Keep each piece of evidence tied to the proposition it actually addresses. A gap in this trace means the claim needs work; it does not prove that the item lacks the property claimed.

Correct the inference where the customer encounters it

For each unsupported extension, choose an editorial action: remove the claim, hold it for qualified assessment, or describe only the limited background point the source supports. If retaining a background citation, make clear what it discusses and avoid wording or placement that presents it as evidence about the merchant's specific product when that connection is absent. Merely deleting the hyperlink leaves the original claim unresolved.

Apply the decision to every identified location that repeats the same inference, including product copy, article summaries and citation captions. Record who approved the change and the wording observed after publication. If the question involves product safety, legality or a proposed substantive scientific claim, have an appropriately qualified professional assess it. This comparison cannot decide that question.

Prism's terms describe its reviews as informational, not certification or legal advice, and say a research-only label does not establish legality or eligibility. For a website-review consultation, bring the public claim, citation and the specific unsupported inference you found. Agree on the review scope before work; neither a citation nor a consultation establishes processing approval.

Citation-to-claim comparison

Use one copy for each actual claim and its cited publication. Complete the publication and product columns from the records you can examine. Missing text, a missing product connection or an added conclusion stays unresolved; a complete citation is not a completed substantiation assessment.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.