Methodology
Every article on Hair Transplant Source follows the same review pipeline before it is published. This page documents that process so readers can judge our work on its merits.
1. Topic selection
We choose topics from a fixed editorial map of five clusters: training, PRP & mesotherapy, FUE & DHI, clinic growth, and team operations. Topic ideas come from search demand data, questions practitioners send us, and gaps we identify in existing publications.
2. Research
Research uses primary clinical literature for surgical and pharmacological claims, and direct interviews with practising clinicians and clinic operators for operational claims. We do not repeat marketing claims from clinic websites without independent corroboration.
3. Drafting
Drafts are written by an author with named credentials in the relevant area. The author owns the byline. We do not publish anonymous bylines for clinical content.
4. Medical review
Clinical articles are reviewed by Dr. Dursun Eser, our named medical reviewer. An article is presented as clinically reviewed only when his name appears in the byline; articles without his name in the reviewer field are editorial research that has not yet been clinically reviewed and are flagged accordingly. We do not claim review that has not happened.
5. Publication and updates
After publication, articles enter a 7-day rolling optimisation cycle. Top-performing pages are expanded with additional FAQs, internal links, and updated examples. Underperforming pages are revised or, if they cannot be defended on quality grounds, marked ‘noindex’ rather than left in the index.
6. Disclosures
We sometimes mention commercial providers in articles for context. When we do, the mention is labelled and the outbound link is marked rel="nofollow". We are not paid for editorial coverage. See our editorial disclosure.
7. Corrections
If you find a factual error, please email editor@hairtransplantsource.com. Substantive corrections are noted at the bottom of the affected article with the date of the correction.