Editorial Policy
How Skin Candid
creates trustworthy content.
Skin Candid exists to give readers clear, useful skincare guidance without hiding uncertainty, commercial influence or the limits of available evidence.
This policy explains how pages are researched, written, reviewed, updated and corrected.
Core principle
The answer comes first. The reasoning must still be visible.
Our pages are built for two kinds of readers: people who want a direct answer quickly, and people who want to understand the evidence and reasoning behind it.
We therefore place the clearest answer early, then provide context, limitations, realistic expectations, safety guidance and relevant product or routine options.
Editorial workflow
Every substantive page follows a defined production process.
The exact level of review depends on the topic, but the structure remains consistent.
Planning
The page receives a permanent operational code, target query, page type, parent page, intended audience and internal-link plan.
Research
Relevant primary, professional and manufacturer sources are identified and assigned before claims are approved.
Drafting
The draft is written for clarity, practical usefulness, mobile reading and direct answer visibility.
Editorial review
Structure, sourcing, claims, tone, internal links, disclosures and publication readiness are checked.
Specialist review
Medical or practical skincare review is added when the topic genuinely requires that expertise.
Publication and monitoring
Published pages receive review dates, update schedules and change records where meaningful revisions occur.
Sources and evidence
Claims are evaluated individually, not given one score for an entire article.
Different statements on the same page may have different levels of support. Skin Candid records evidence at claim level where appropriate.
Preferred sources
- Peer-reviewed research and systematic reviews
- Professional medical and dermatology organisations
- Official regulatory and public-health sources
- Manufacturer documentation for formula, usage and product facts
- Reliable specialist references for practical context
Evidence language
- Strong
- Moderate
- Limited
- Mixed
- Insufficient
- Unsupported
- Evidence of no meaningful benefit
- Safety concern
We do not use fake precision such as 9.4/10 evidence scores. We do not treat popularity, repetition or influencer endorsement as proof.
Review responsibilities
Medical review and practical skincare review are separate roles.
Medical Reviewer
Reviews clinical accuracy, contraindications, safety boundaries, treatment claims, red flags and escalation guidance when those issues are present.
Lead Practical Skincare Reviewer
Reviews product use, routine integration, tolerability, realistic day-to-day application and practical skincare guidance.
Supporting Practical Reviewer
Contributes practical insight under the lead reviewer’s framework and does not override medical review or the lead practical reviewer.
Editorial Reviewer
Checks structure, sourcing, clarity, disclosures, conflicts, consistency and whether the page meets publication standards.
Authorship and review claims
Names appear only when the work actually happened.
Suggested authors and reviewers in our internal planning system are not publication claims. A person is credited only after they genuinely write, review or approve the relevant work.
Credentials and professional roles are described accurately and are not presented as verified until the required verification is complete.
Use of artificial intelligence
AI may assist production. It does not replace editorial accountability.
AI may assist with
- Initial outlines and content structure
- Formatting and HTML production
- Summarising assigned source material
- Generating alternative explanations or headings
- Checking internal consistency and completeness
AI may not independently approve
- Medical or safety claims
- Product testing claims
- Credentials or reviewer status
- Commercial disclosures
- Final recommendations or rankings
- Publication readiness
Every published page remains the responsibility of the named author, reviewer and editorial team—not the software used during production.
Commercial independence
Advertising and affiliate eligibility follow editorial evaluation.
Commercial relationships may support the site, but they do not control rankings, conclusions or criticism.
Brands cannot buy
Rankings, positive conclusions, advance approval, edits, suppression of criticism or removal of accurate negative findings.
Affiliate links cannot decide
Whether a product is included, how it is ranked or whether it receives a positive recommendation.
Sponsored content must be visible
Paid or commercially influenced material must be labelled clearly and separated from independent editorial conclusions.
Conflicts must be recorded
Relevant financial, professional or personal conflicts are disclosed where they could affect reader interpretation.
Publication gate
A page is not ready simply because the draft is finished.
A substantive page must complete its required trust record, review assignments, disclosures, evidence summary, limitations and review schedule before it can be treated as publication-ready.
Medical, practical and editorial review requirements are determined by page type and topic risk.
Corrections and updates
Meaningful changes should be visible, not silently overwritten.
Skin Candid records significant evidence, safety, formula, recommendation and correction changes. Public change history and internal operational notes are kept separate.
Minor spelling, formatting or readability edits may be made without a public correction note when they do not change the meaning.
Readers may report possible errors through our contact page.
Related standards