Editorial Standards
The rules this site holds itself to, so you can hold it to them too.
The principles
- Honest before profitable.
- Educational before promotional.
- Inclusive rather than exclusive.
- Accessible without sacrificing accuracy.
- Based on experience, research and critical evaluation — not hype.
How claims are handled
Ingredient entries distinguish between two different things that are often blurred together: how well something works in practice, and how strong the published evidence for it is. A well-established ingredient with modest effects and a promising ingredient with thin evidence are not described the same way.
Entries that have not yet been matched to cited literature are labelled as editorial assessment rather than presented as research-backed. Nothing is dressed up as evidence it does not have.
Candidate sources are gathered with research tooling but are never published automatically. Every citation is reviewed and accepted by a person before it appears, and sources are filtered against an allowlist of medical and academic domains — a plausible-looking but fabricated citation is worse than no citation at all on pages carrying safety claims.
What you will not find here
- Miracle claims, or language implying a cosmetic product treats a medical condition.
- Fear marketing about ingredients.
- Invented or unverified citations.
- Ratings influenced by affiliate commission, gifting or sponsorship.
Corrections
Content is updated, corrected or removed as new information becomes available. If you find an error, report it and it will be corrected rather than quietly deleted. Substantive corrections are noted on the entry itself.