Medical Review Process

UMO publishes content about health, exercise, and recovery — topics where getting the details wrong can have real consequences. Every health article is reviewed by a PhD-level scientific reviewer before publication. This page describes how that process works.

Who reviews UMO content

Scott Mongold, PhD — Neuromechanics researcher at Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), with 10+ years of strength coaching experience.

  • LinkedIn
  • Google Scholar

Scott's expertise includes: neuromechanics, heart rate variability, strength and conditioning, movement science, athletic performance, and recovery physiology.

What gets reviewed

Every article in the Health, Science, and Sports categories. Scott reviews for:

  • Factual accuracy — are the mechanisms described correctly?
  • Appropriate hedging — do we overstate findings where the evidence is thin?
  • Dose / intervention specifics — are recommended protocols within ranges supported by research?
  • Missing context — are we omitting caveats (population studied, effect size, etc.) that would change how a reader interprets the finding?

Scott does not do style or copy-editing — his review is scientific.

Review cadence

Articles are reviewed pre-publication and dated in the article schema with lastReviewed.

When new primary research materially changes a conclusion we've published — or when a reader flags an error — the article is updated, Scott reviews the change, and the lastReviewed date is bumped. Material changes are noted at the top of the affected post.

What this page is not

UMO blog content is educational. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for consultation with your physician, coach, or physical therapist. If you have a specific health condition, training question, or concern, please consult an appropriate professional.

Report an issue

Email info@umo-health.com if you find a scientific error in UMO content. Corrections are public; see our corrections policy.