Editorial Standards

Editorial Standards

This page documents the editorial principles, research practices, and fact-checking standards behind every article on SkincareTopic.

Why this page exists

Skincare media is full of articles that look authoritative but aren’t. AI-generated content gets passed off as original research. Sponsored content gets disguised as editorial. Recommendations get made based on which retailer pays the highest commission, not which product works best.

We want readers to be able to evaluate what they’re reading on SkincareTopic — to know how we work, what we check, and what we won’t do. This page is that documentation.

Research sources we rely on

Peer-reviewed dermatology and cosmetic chemistry research

We read primary research — clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses — published in journals like the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, JAMA Dermatology, the British Journal of Dermatology, Dermatologic Surgery, and Skin Pharmacology and Physiology.

Consensus guidelines from professional bodies

For clinical questions, we defer to consensus statements from:

  • The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)
  • The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD)
  • The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV)
  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), for pregnancy-related questions

Cosmetic chemistry and formulation science

Sources like Skin Inc., Cosmetics & Toiletries, the Personal Care Council’s INCI database, and the published work of independent cosmetic chemists.

Ingredient databases

For ingredient identification and safety data: INCIDecoder, EWG’s Skin Deep (used cautiously — EWG’s methodology is sometimes overcautious), the EU CosIng database, and the FDA’s CFR Title 21 cosmetic ingredient regulations.

What we don’t rely on

  • Marketing copy. If a brand says their product is “clinically proven,” we look for the actual clinical study before accepting the claim.
  • Single-source citations. We try not to make assertions based on a single study, especially small, industry-funded, or unreplicated ones.
  • Influencer recommendations. Individual user reviews are useful for spotting patterns, but not as a basis for recommendations.
  • AI-generated content from other sites. The web is increasingly full of plausible-sounding skincare articles that contain factual errors. We don’t aggregate or rewrite content from other sites — every article is written from primary sources.

How we make product recommendations

When we recommend a specific product within an article, the recommendation is based on a combination of:

  1. Ingredient profile. Does the formula contain the active ingredients the article is about, at appropriate concentrations?
  2. Formulation quality. Is the rest of the ingredient list well-considered? Are there obvious irritants or known sensitizers in a product marketed for sensitive skin?
  3. Real-world evidence. Long-term user reviews (collected from multiple retailers, not just one), dermatologist endorsements, and durable popularity. We weight steady-over-time evidence more than viral spikes.
  4. Value. Is the product reasonably priced for what it delivers? We try to include picks at multiple price points.
  5. Availability. Can a typical reader actually buy it? We avoid recommending niche products that require specialty boutiques.

What we always disclose

  • When an article contains affiliate links (see affiliate disclosure)
  • When a product was provided to us for review
  • When we have any financial relationship with a brand mentioned in an article (we generally do not, but if we ever do, we will disclose it)
  • When a piece of information is uncertain or contested in the research
  • When we’ve updated an article significantly (date stamp at the top + change notes at the bottom for major revisions)

What we will never do

  • Accept payment for editorial coverage of any kind
  • Publish sponsored content disguised as editorial
  • Recommend products based on affiliate commission rates rather than merit
  • Make medical claims about products treating or curing skin conditions
  • Use sensationalist headlines or fear-based marketing language
  • Cover topics outside our defined scope (children, teens, animals) where we lack the relevant expertise

Corrections and updates

When we get something wrong, we correct it. Significant corrections are noted at the bottom of the article with a date and a description of what changed. Minor edits (typos, link fixes) are made silently.

If you’ve spotted an error, please tell us. We’d rather know.

Editorial independence

SkincareTopic is independently owned. We are not part of a beauty conglomerate, a retailer, a publishing group, or a venture-funded media company with growth targets. We answer to our readers, who keep coming back when we do this well — and stop coming back when we don’t.

That independence is the foundation of everything else on this page. Without it, the principles above would be aspirational. With it, they’re how we work.

Last updated: 2026