Editorial Policy
This page explains how content on cosmeticpeat.org is researched, written, and kept accurate. It applies to every scientific page on the site: conditions, applications, substances, mechanisms, and research summaries.
How claims are selected
CPA maintains an internal, structured reference layer of peer-reviewed literature on peat, peloids, humic substances, and balneotherapy. Every scientific claim published on the public site is drafted from this reference layer, then rewritten for a general audience. Prose can be simplified for readability, but the underlying claim must not go further than what the cited research supports.
We do not publish a claim because it is commercially convenient. We publish it because the evidence, however strong or weak, exists and is worth explaining honestly.
Source hierarchy
When multiple sources address the same question, we weight them in this order:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Randomized controlled trials
- Controlled human studies
- Observational human studies
- Peer-reviewed animal studies
- Peer-reviewed in-vitro / laboratory studies
- Academic books and institutional references
- Historical / traditional-use literature
We avoid using blogs, manufacturer marketing pages, commercial ingredient-supplier claims, and unsupported secondary health content as the scientific basis for a claim. Secondary health-media coverage may be referenced when discussing how a topic has been reported, but it is never the evidentiary basis for a claim on this site.
How evidence is graded
Every research summary on this site is tagged with a study type (for example: randomized controlled trial, cohort study, in-vitro study, traditional-use record) and an evidence grade. Every condition, application, and substance page separates what has been shown in humans from what has been shown in animal models or in the lab — laboratory findings support biological plausibility, they do not by themselves prove a clinical benefit in people.
We use cautious language throughout: "has been studied for," "may support," "shown in laboratory research," "small human studies suggest." We avoid "clinically proven," "cures," or "treats X" unless a specific, cited study result justifies that exact wording.
Condition and application pages show a top-of-page Evidence level badge (Substantial / Moderate / Preliminary / Insufficient). It is computed from that page's underlying claims, deliberately one notch more conservative than our internal working rating — an internal "strong" rating shows publicly as "Substantial," an internal "moderate" as "Moderate," and so on down the scale. We'd rather understate than overstate.
Use of primary research
Wherever possible, claims link to a primary source: PubMed, a DOI, the publisher's journal page, or an institutional reference. Every research summary on this site links back to its underlying paper. Where a citation is missing or a linked paper page is incomplete, that is a gap in our own process, not a claim we're making without support — let us know if you spot one.
Education, not promotion
CPA is an educational non-profit, not a marketplace. We do not sell peat products, and we do not adjust an evidence assessment because a commercial party would prefer a stronger or weaker conclusion. See our Funding & Conflict of Interest policy for how we handle commercial relationships.
Corrections and updates
Readers, researchers, and journalists can flag anything they believe is inaccurate, outdated, or overstated. See our Corrections Policy for how that works, and our Scientific Review Policy for how higher-risk pages are checked.