Research & Review Process

Each commissioned guide begins with a reader question and a defined scope. A topic title is a commission, not a completed or verified article.

Find directly supporting sources

We start with relevant public health and dermatology resources, then use regulators, primary studies and systematic reviews when the question requires them. Sources are checked at article level. References include the actual supporting page or paper, not only an organisation’s homepage.

Explain what the evidence can support

We distinguish an ingredient’s laboratory properties from evidence about a finished product, and a possible outcome from a guaranteed result. Study limitations, uncertainty and differences between populations or treatment settings should remain visible in the explanation.

Check practical details

UK regulatory and care-pathway claims need the correct jurisdiction. Price comparisons require named provider-owned fee sources, a date checked and a clear account of what is included. Where equivalent prices cannot be verified, we discuss the components of a quote without inventing a range.

Prepare useful content

Articles include a concise introduction, key takeaways, a readable structure, useful comparisons, common questions and references. Tables and infographics organise supported information; they are not a reason to invent statistics.

Approve and publish separately

Drafting, source checking, editorial approval and any qualified clinical review are separate stages. A finished-looking page is not evidence that all stages have occurred. Articles remain drafts until the required checks are complete. Review status must be reported accurately.

Revisit and correct

A changed recommendation, updated regulation, withdrawn source or substantiated reader concern can prompt a review. The journal does not promise that every page is checked continuously.