Our editorial mission
Our mission is practical: translate scientific evidence about soap ingredients into clear, usable information for everyday people. We aim to be accurate, cautious where evidence is limited, and explicit about uncertainty. Editorial decisions are guided by a single question: "Does this help a reader make a safer, better-informed choice?"
Scope of content
This policy applies to all editorial content published under the CleanFormulation brand: ingredient pages, product notes, research explainers, methodology pages, FAQs, and downloadable consumer resources. It does not apply to paid advertising or sponsored material, those are labelled and handled under separate sponsorship agreements described on our Ethics & Transparency page.
Research methods: how we build an article
Our approach is evidence-first and reproducible. Each substantive article follows a documented workflow described below. The goal is not encyclopaedic completeness but transparent selection and interpretation of sources relevant to consumer exposure.
1. Define the question
Before literature searching, the responsible researcher or author frames the consumer-facing question: e.g., "Is ingredient X a routine irritant in rinse-off soaps?" This scope guides search terms and evidence priorities: e.g., "Is ingredient X a routine irritant in rinse-off soaps?" This scope guides search terms and evidence priorities.
2. Search & source selection
We prioritise primary regulatory reviews (SCCS, FDA summaries), systematic reviews, human clinical studies, and validated toxicology assessments. Our evidence tiers (A–D), documented on the Ingredient Framework page, are used to rank sources. Search platforms include PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, regulatory databases, and recognized toxicology repositories.
3. Extract & summarise
Key data points are extracted into an internal worksheet: study design, population, exposure route, concentration (if available), key results, limitations, and the authors' conclusions. For ingredient pages we also collect INCI names, synonyms, CAS numbers, and typical concentration ranges from manufacturer technical sheets when available, clearly labelled as industry-supplied information.
4. Translate to plain language
Scientific findings are rewritten in plain language with an emphasis on "what it means for a reader." Each article includes a short safety summary, "Consumer actions" guidance, and links to primary sources and regulatory opinions.
5. Document assumptions
When data (such as exact concentrations) are unavailable, we make explicit assumptions and conservative estimates and document them in the "How we decided" or equivalent methodology section of the page.
Editorial review process & frequency
Our content follows a two-stage review model to reduce errors and bias: primary drafting and independent verification.
CleanFormulation content may be written by contributing research writers, formulation scientists, or subject-matter specialists. All contributors are identified on the relevant article pages and listed on the Editorial Team & Contributors page.
Primary drafting
A designated researcher or contributing author prepares the draft and collects source material. The draft includes an evidence list and a short rationale for the recommendation or flag assigned.
Independent verification
A second team member, who was not involved in the initial drafting, independently reviews the cited sources and assesses the interpretation, and checks the text for clarity and potential overreach. Minor edits are applied directly; substantive disagreements are resolved through discussion and, if necessary, external consultation.
External expert review
For high-impact or disputed topics we may seek input from external domain experts (dermatologists, toxicologists). External reviewers sign a COI declaration and provide feedback; the publication includes a note that the piece was externally reviewed when this occurs.
Review frequency
Pages are assigned to one of three review cadence categories based on topic volatility:
| Category | Examples | Review frequency |
|---|---|---|
| High priority | Ingredient safety alerts, regulatory actions | Monthly, or sooner when material new evidence emerges |
| Medium priority | Common ingredient pages, methodology | Quarterly |
| Low priority | Historical explainers, evergreen content | Annually |
Each page displays a "Last reviewed" date and a changelog entry for substantive updates.
Conflict of interest (COI) & funding policy
Independence is central. Contributors and reviewers must disclose material relationships with industry (consultancy, research funding, stock ownership, paid speaking). Disclosures are recorded and published on relevant pages when they are material to the content.
Disclosure rules
- All paid consultancies and research contracts related to cosmetic, chemical, or fragrance industries must be disclosed.
- Minor non-financial relationships (e.g., unpaid advisory conversations) are disclosed when they might reasonably be perceived to influence content.
- Editors with relevant COIs are recused from decisions; another senior editor handles the final decision.
Sponsored content
CleanFormulation does not currently accept sponsorships or grants. If introduced in the future, they will be structured to preserve full editorial independence and disclosed transparently.
Updates, corrections & versioning
When new evidence affects content, we update transparently. We distinguish between minor edits (typos, formatting) and substantive changes (new evidence, revised recommendations).
How we record changes
- Last reviewed date: Updated whenever a page is substantively reviewed.
- Changelog: A short, public note explaining the change, the date, and the evidence prompting it.
- Correction notices: When prior statements were incorrect, a correction note appears on the page explaining the error, the correction, and the date.
Who approves updates?
Editorial updates are approved by the Research Lead or a delegated senior editor after independent verification. For contentious changes, external expert review is sought before publication.
Editorial responsibility & contact
The Research Lead holds ultimate editorial responsibility for published content. Day-to-day editorial operations are handled by the research team. Contact information for editorial queries and corrections is published on the contact page.
Escalation and appeals
If a reader disagrees with a published conclusion, they may submit a correction or appeal. We acknowledge receipt within 7 business days and outline the review timeline. Appeals are reviewed by an independent reviewer not involved in the original decision.
Ethics, transparency & data practices
Our editorial choices are subject to ethical constraints: respect for evidence, protection of personal data in user reports, and transparency about sources and funding. We publish source lists, methodology summaries, and our Ingredient Framework so readers can verify how conclusions were reached.
Data sharing
We provide reproducibility packs (search strings, selected sources) to researchers and public-interest projects on request; personal data is redacted to protect privacy.
Final note, a human promise
"Research is a conversation, not a verdict. We aim to publish responsibly, correct promptly, and remain open to challenge."
If you have questions about this policy, need to request reproducibility materials, or wish to flag an issue with our content, please use our contact page and select "Editorial / Corrections".
This policy applies prospectively; archived versions are preserved through public changelogs for accountability.