Primary source
Peer-reviewed journals
Dermatology and cosmetic science journals, indexed and reviewed by other researchers before publication.
Our process
Transparent on purpose. If you think there is a better way to do this, we want to hear it.
Primary source
Dermatology and cosmetic science journals, indexed and reviewed by other researchers before publication.
Primary source
Human trials with a stated method, sample size and comparison group, not internal brand testing alone.
Primary source
Ingredient-level safety reviews from the EU's SCCS and the US Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel. Indian cosmetic standards largely follow EU norms.
Not treated as evidence
A brand's own marketing copy about its own product doesn't count as a source, even when we quote it.
Not treated as evidence
Personal results are real, but they're anecdotes. We label them as such, we don't cite them as proof.
Not treated as evidence
Small studies with no comparison group can point us somewhere. They can't earn a Tier 1 badge on their own.
We pull every study, trial and regulatory filing that touches the topic, including the ones that disagree with each other.
Each piece of evidence gets sorted into Tier 1, 2 or 3, based on study design, sample size and whether results have been repeated.
We look specifically for what changes, if anything, on Fitzpatrick IV to VI skin, since most source studies don't ask that question by default.
The article gets written the way we'd explain it to a friend, without losing the caveats that actually matter.
When new research changes the picture, we update the article and note what changed and why, instead of quietly editing it.
If you think there's a source we're missing, a step that should work differently, or a better way to check our claims, we want to hear it. Drop your email and tell us what you'd add.