Editorial Guidelines

VapePicks exists for one reason: to give adult nicotine users clear, honest information about vape devices without hype. These editorial guidelines explain how we choose topics, how we write and fact-check, and how we handle sensitive health and safety issues around nicotine and e-cigarettes.

This page is written for adults who already use nicotine or are evaluating different vape products. It is not meant for minors or for people who do not currently use nicotine.

1. What VapePicks Does – and What We Do Not Do

VapePicks reviews e-cigarettes and other nicotine-delivery devices as consumer products. The focus is on how they work in daily life:

  • Flavor and throat hit

  • Vapor production and airflow/draw

  • Battery life and charging behavior

  • Leak resistance and build quality

  • Ease of use and portability

All testing is hands-on. Devices are used during commutes, work breaks, evenings at home, and heavy testing sessions.

At the same time, we treat nicotine and aerosol exposure as health-relevant topics. Nicotine is addictive, and major public-health bodies state that e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless and can contain nicotine, ultrafine particles, and other chemicals.

Because of that, VapePicks does not:

  • Encourage people who do not already use nicotine to start

  • Write content aimed at minors or show minors using vape devices

  • Present vaping as “safe,” “harmless,” or “healthy”

  • Promise that any device will help you quit smoking

Product reviews and guides describe performance and user experience. Any discussion of health risk or regulation is treated cautiously and grounded in established public-health sources.

2. Our Team and Editorial Roles

Every vaping product review and every methodology page is built around the same core team.

  • Chris Miller – Lead tester
    Chris coordinates device selection, testing plans, and final scoring. He has a background in tech and consumer-electronics reviewing, now focused on nicotine devices and regulation. In editorial work, Chris is responsible for translating test results into clear, plain-language articles. 

  • Marcus Reed – High-intensity usage tester
    Marcus brings the perspective of a former heavy smoker who now relies on vaping as his main nicotine intake. He specializes in high-output devices, direct-lung setups, and heavy use under stress. When an article discusses performance at higher wattages, coil life under strain, or heat buildup, those observations usually come from Marcus’s testing reports.

  • Jamal Davis – Everyday carry and mobility tester
    Jamal focuses on how a device behaves in pockets, bags, cars, and public spaces. His notes drive our judgments on portability, durability under daily bumps, and true grab-and-go ease. When we talk about how a pod system feels on a crowded train or in a jacket pocket, this draws directly from Jamal’s logs and feedback.

  • Dr. Adrian Walker – Clinical and respiratory advisor
    Dr. Walker is a board-certified physician in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, and sleep medicine. He does not test devices himself. He reviews health-related sections, checks our descriptions of symptoms and risk framing, and ensures that references to respiratory or cardiovascular issues align with guidance from organizations such as WHO, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

How these roles shape editorial decisions

  • Chris leads topic selection, structure, and final wording.

  • Marcus and Jamal provide structured usage data and subjective impressions.

  • Dr. Walker comments on any health-related passages, regulatory references, or risk interpretations and may ask for revisions or removals.

No other permanent “expert personas” are added. When we include other views, they appear as anonymized user feedback or external survey data and are kept separate from the core team.

3. Handling Sensitive and Health-Related Content

Nicotine use, respiratory health, and youth exposure are sensitive topics. Our guidelines require extra care in several areas.

3.1 Adult-only focus

  • Articles explicitly state that products are intended for adult nicotine users only.

  • We do not write step-by-step content designed to help minors hide vaping or access devices.

  • Visual examples, hypothetical situations, and language avoid school settings, teen culture references, or youth-oriented framing.

3.2 No medical advice, no cessation promises

  • Chris, Marcus, and Jamal never give personal medical advice in reviews.

  • Phrases like “this will cure your cough,” “this will fix your lungs,” or “this will let you quit smoking” are not used.

  • When readers are told to take health issues seriously, we direct them toward clinic visits or licensed healthcare professionals, not toward specific products.

Where the team reports symptoms such as throat irritation or coughing during testing, these are framed as subjective experiences. Dr. Walker reviews this language and may add comments reminding readers that ongoing symptoms should be evaluated in a clinical setting, regardless of device choice.

3.3 Health information and risk framing

Any statement that touches on:

  • Nicotine addiction

  • Respiratory or cardiovascular impact

  • Aerosol composition

  • Youth or pregnancy risk

  • Secondhand exposure

must be anchored in recognized public-health sources, primarily WHO, FDA, and CDC reports or similar national health agencies.

When new evidence appears, we update summaries to reflect current consensus. We avoid cherry-picking favorable statements and instead present risk in neutral, factual terms.

4. Separating Experience Descriptions from Risk Information

A core rule at VapePicks is that product experience and health risk are treated as different layers of information.

4.1 Experience-based content

Experience-based content includes:

  • Flavor descriptions (sweet, muted, artificial, balanced, etc.)

  • Throat hit intensity and texture

  • Vapor volume and density

  • Device comfort, button placement, hand feel

  • Battery life in hours or number of puffs

  • Leaks, condensation, and overall cleanliness during daily use

These impressions come directly from Chris, Marcus, and Jamal using the devices under clearly described conditions. We state that they are subjective and that other adult users may feel differently.

Language like “I felt a medium-strong throat hit at this nicotine strength” or “we saw minor condensation around the mouthpiece after a full workday” is allowed because it reports what we experienced rather than promising specific outcomes for every reader.

4.2 Risk-oriented content

Risk-oriented content includes:

  • Discussion of nicotine dependence and withdrawal

  • Comments on potential lung irritation, cardiovascular strain, or long-term impacts

  • Summaries of research on e-cigarette aerosol components

  • Regulatory warnings about youth, pregnancy, or non-smoker use

These sections do not come from the team’s personal feelings. They must be based on established research and official guidance, and they are usually reviewed or initiated by Dr. Walker. Where the testing team’s experience intersects with risk (for example, noticing stronger cough during specific testing), Dr. Walker helps frame that in cautious, non-diagnostic terms.

When there is uncertainty or disagreement in the scientific literature, we acknowledge that instead of making absolute claims.

5. Use of Medical and Scientific Sources

Every health-touching statement in VapePicks content must trace back to credible evidence.

5.1 Source types we rely on

We prioritize:

  • Technical reports and fact sheets from WHO, FDA, and CDC on tobacco and e-cigarettes

  • Peer-reviewed studies indexed in databases such as PubMed that examine e-cigarette aerosol composition, nicotine delivery, and respiratory outcomes

  • Policy and consensus statements from national or regional public-health agencies

We avoid:

  • Marketing materials or brand blogs

  • Anonymous opinion posts

  • Unsigned “expert” articles without clear credentials

5.2 How we reference sources in articles

In device reviews and core pages:

  • Risk statements are kept concise and linked to formal sources in a reference or “Sources” section.

  • We credit the institution or authors, the year, and the publication or database where possible.

  • We do not copy large blocks of text; instead, we summarize findings in plain language.

Dr. Walker reviews the way we interpret and summarize these sources. If wording stretches beyond what a study or report supports, we revise or remove it.

6. Content Creation, Review, and Update Workflow

Editorial standards apply at each stage of the content lifecycle.

6.1 Topic selection and planning

  • Topics focus on vape devices, nicotine use among adults, and practical questions about performance, maintenance, or comparison.

  • We avoid pieces that could function as how-to guides for minors or non-users to begin vaping.

  • For health-heavy topics (for example, “What is in vape aerosol?”), we plan direct involvement from Dr. Walker from the outline stage.

6.2 Testing and data collection

Chris organizes structured test plans. Marcus and Jamal run defined scenarios:

  • Normal commuting and workday usage

  • High-intensity sessions that stress battery, coils, and airflow

  • Pocket, bag, and car-compartment carry tests to observe durability and accidental activation risk

They log:

  • Puff counts, approximate hours of use, and charge cycles

  • Leaks, cracks, or failures

  • Subjective impressions of flavor, throat hit, smoothness, and comfort

Health symptoms noticed during testing are recorded but not treated as formal medical data. Those entries are reviewed carefully when we prepare articles.

6.3 Drafting and internal editorial review

Chris drafts articles using the test logs and lab notes. The internal editorial review checks:

  • Whether all claims about device performance are supported by observed behavior

  • Whether any wording slides into medical advice or unsupported health claims

  • Whether the tone remains neutral and suitable for adult readers

Marcus and Jamal review drafts if their testing plays a major role in a piece, confirming that their experience is represented accurately and consistently with previous reviews.

6.4 Medical and safety review

Any paragraph mentioning:

  • Respiratory symptoms

  • Long-term health concerns

  • Nicotine addiction

  • Youth or pregnancy warnings

  • Policy or regulation

goes to Dr. Walker for review. He may:

  • Request more precise references to WHO, FDA, CDC, or peer-reviewed data

  • Ask us to soften or clarify wording that overstates or understates risk

  • Suggest short notes reminding readers that persistent symptoms require medical evaluation, not just switching devices

If we cannot support a claim with solid evidence, we remove it.

6.5 Publication, labeling, and updates

When all checks are complete:

  • Articles are labeled with the author’s name (Chris Miller) and the date of last update.

  • If medical content is involved, we add a note that the section was reviewed by Dr. Adrian Walker.

  • Pages are revisited regularly, especially when regulatory guidance changes or new high-quality studies are published.

If readers or manufacturers point out a possible error, we verify the issue. Confirmed mistakes are corrected, and a brief correction note may be added for material changes.

7. Commercial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

VapePicks may receive products for testing or earn commissions from some links. These relationships do not control our scores or recommendations.

Our guidelines require that:

  • Devices are tested to the same standard regardless of how we obtained them.

  • Poor performance, early failure, or concerning behaviors (overheating, leaking, faulty charging) are reported clearly, even if the device was supplied by a brand.

  • Affiliate relationships, if present, are disclosed in a separate statement.

No brand may preview, edit, or approve our editorial content. Sponsored content must be labeled as such and kept separate from independent reviews.

8. Language, Style, and Boundaries

Because this site covers nicotine devices, we apply additional style rules:

  • Plain, direct language rather than glamorizing or romantic descriptions

  • No slogans, memes, or visual framing that would likely appeal to minors

  • Clear reminders that nicotine products are for adults only and are not recommended for people who do not already use nicotine

When describing enjoyable aspects of a product (for example, a satisfying draw or stable flavor), we avoid turning that into an invitation for non-users to start vaping. The goal is to help existing adult users compare products, not to grow the user base.

9. How We Summarize Testing in Reviews

This page focuses on editorial rules rather than detailed methodology. In short:

  • Devices are evaluated across Flavor, Throat Hit, Vapor Production, Airflow/Draw, Battery Life, Leak Resistance, Build Quality, Ease of Use, and Portability.

  • Each category uses a 5-point scoring scale, based on structured tests run by Chris, Marcus, and Jamal.

  • Health-related comments, such as irritation or odor, are described as personal experience and then cross-checked with Dr. Walker against established risk information.

Full details of our test procedures, scoring rules, and example scenarios appear in the dedicated “How We Test Vapes” and category-specific methodology pages.

10. Commitment to Readers

These editorial guidelines exist to protect readers, not brands or devices. The core commitments are:

  • Adult-only focus and clear boundaries

  • Honest, reproducible testing methods

  • Transparent separation between experience and risk

  • Reliance on WHO, FDA, CDC, and other recognized health authorities for health information

  • Willingness to correct and update content as evidence and regulations change

Vaping and nicotine use carry real risks. VapePicks’s role is to document how devices behave in daily life, report those findings clearly, and tie any health-relevant information back to trusted public-health sources, without overstating benefits or minimizing harm.