Review & Verification Policy

Why we publish a verification policy

Ingredient and product information often circulates without clear sourcing. This policy exists to make our research process visible: where information comes from, how it is weighed, and how others can independently verify it.

The purpose is documentation and transparency, not certification, approval, or instruction.

Scope of this policy

This policy applies to factual assertions published on CleanFormulation, including ingredient documentation, product notes, methodological pages, and research datasets.

Opinion content and guest contributions are clearly labelled and follow the same sourcing standards unless stated otherwise.

Primary sources and reference material

We prioritise original, authoritative sources wherever possible. These typically include:

• Regulatory publications: public opinions and dossiers issued by recognised authorities.
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: structured summaries of multiple studies.
• Peer-reviewed human studies: topical exposure and dermatological research.
• Toxicology and chemistry databases: publicly accessible reference systems.
• Professional guidance documents: consensus statements and position papers.

Supplier documentation, industry submissions, and preprints are treated as supplementary material and are explicitly identified when referenced.

Identifiers and traceability

To reduce ambiguity and support traceability, ingredient pages record:

• INCI names and recognised synonyms
• CAS registry numbers where available
• Persistent study identifiers (DOI / PMID)
• Direct links to publicly available regulatory publications

These identifiers allow readers to locate the same source material used during review.

Evidence tiers and interpretation

Sources are grouped into internal evidence tiers to guide interpretation, not to assign authority. These tiers describe source strength and are distinct from the consumer-facing evidence flags used on ingredient pages.

Review and documentation workflow

1. Identify the factual statement or claim under review.
2. Locate primary source material using academic and regulatory databases.
3. Extract relevant study details, including context and limitations.
4. Confirm identifiers and nomenclature consistency.
5. Summarise findings in neutral, plain-language form.
6. Conduct an internal secondary review of source selection and interpretation.
7. Publish with linked sources and a brief explanation of how conclusions were formed.

Conflicting or limited evidence

When sources disagree or data are limited, we:

• Describe differences in study design and exposure context.
• Explain why certain sources were weighted more heavily.
• Clearly state areas of uncertainty or insufficient data.

No attempt is made to resolve scientific disagreement beyond transparent documentation.

Supplier data and manufacturer input

Supplier or manufacturer-provided material may be referenced for formulation context or concentration ranges. Such material is:

• Clearly identified as non-independent.
• Used only alongside publicly verifiable sources.
• Archived when materially relevant to documentation.

Reproducibility materials

For research transparency, reproducibility materials may be provided to who qualifies, including:

• Search strategies and database lists
• Source inventories
• Redacted extraction worksheets

Requests are evaluated for feasibility, licensing, and data protection considerations.

Secondary and external review

Substantive documentation may undergo secondary internal review and, where feasible, external expert input. External participation is acknowledged only with consent and without editorial delegation.

CleanFormulation research may involve multiple contributors including research writers, reviewers, and subject-matter consultants. All authors and reviewers participating in the preparation of an article are identified on that page and listed on the Editorial Team & Contributors page.

Corrections and updates

If inaccuracies are identified, corrections are issued and recorded in the public changelog with a description of the source material that prompted the revision.

Submitting sources or correction requests

Readers and researchers may submit documentation or source material via the Contact page. Submissions should include specific references or evidence to support review.