Nicoxit publishes about nicotine, withdrawal and quitting. These are health topics, and being wrong about them has a cost. This page sets out how our articles are written, sourced, reviewed and corrected, so you can judge them yourself.
Who writes them
Our articles are written by the Nicoxit team and published under the Nicoxit name rather than a personal byline. The writing is a team product, and we would rather you weigh the sources than a name you have no way to check.
Medical review
Some of our articles are reviewed for clinical accuracy by Natasha Tehlan, M.Phil Clinical Psychology · RCI-registered (CRR A108753), Assistant Professor and Clinical Psychologist at Amity University Gurgaon.
Her review covers the health content and nothing else. She checks whether the claims are accurate, whether the sources we cite actually support them, whether the hedging matches the strength of the evidence, and whether anything could mislead or harm someone reading it. She does not review our tone, our design, our pricing or our product, and she does not review, endorse or recommend the Nicoxit app.
That is why a reviewed article says "Reviewed by" and never "Recommended by" or "Approved by". A reviewer's credential attests to the accuracy of an article. It is not a verdict on what we sell.
What the byline means, and what its absence means
An article that has been reviewed carries a "Reviewed by" line naming the reviewer and the date of that review. An article without that line has not been reviewed. We publish both, side by side, on purpose — reviewing takes time, and we would rather tell you which is which than wait or imply a review that never happened.
Her name goes on nothing she has not read.
If we later make a material change to a reviewed article — a new or changed health claim, statistic, citation, or piece of safety guidance — it goes back to her before the byline stands again. Changes that leave the health content alone, such as a rewritten headline, a new internal link or a different image, do not.
Sourcing
Every health claim we make carries a source you can open. If we cannot source it, we do not publish it.
We prefer recent evidence, which in practice means 2019 or later. Where we cite something older, it is because no adequate recent equivalent exists, and substituting a weaker recent paper to satisfy a date would make the article less accurate rather than more. The age of the source is visible in the citation either way.
We also report weak evidence as weak. Where a review rates its own certainty as low, we say so alongside the finding instead of stating the finding flat. Where something is an association rather than a demonstrated cause, we say that too.
This is not medical advice
Our articles are general information. They are not a diagnosis, a treatment plan, or a substitute for advice from someone who knows your history. If you take prescription medication, are pregnant, or are being treated for a heart or mental health condition, talk to the person treating you before you change anything — including before you quit.
Corrections
If you think something we have published is wrong, tell us and we will check it. Where we find an error in health content we correct it and, where the article carries a reviewer byline, we send the correction back for review before republishing.