Scientific Review Policy

Content that touches on health — conditions, treatments, and safety information in particular — carries a higher responsibility than most editorial content. This page explains the checks that content goes through before and after publication.

Baseline review, on every scientific page

Before publication, every claim on a condition, application, substance, or mechanism page is checked against our internal structured reference layer of peer-reviewed sources. That check verifies:

• the claim is actually supported by the cited source, not just adjacent to it;
• human, animal, and in-vitro evidence are correctly labelled and not conflated;
• the wording matches the strength of the evidence (see our Editorial Policy);
• limitations are stated where the evidence is thin.

Independent expert review

We are building relationships with independent dermatology, balneology, and peat-science researchers to review higher-risk pages beyond our own internal process. We have not yet published a page with a named external reviewer attached to it — when we do, that page will say so explicitly, with the reviewer's name and credentials shown only with their confirmed permission.

Until then, treat the absence of a named reviewer as accurate: it means the page reflects our internal editorial process described above, not independent sign-off.

What we will not do

We will not attribute a review, quote, or endorsement to a named expert without their explicit confirmation. We will not imply a level of external validation a page has not actually received.

High-risk pages

We treat condition pages (for example, psoriasis, eczema, dandruff) and any page discussing safety or contraindications as higher risk than, say, a terminology definition or a spa listing. These are the pages we prioritise for independent review as reviewer relationships develop.

Questions about a specific page's review status: [email protected]. To flag an error, see our Corrections Policy.