These are the standards we hold our own work to. They are deliberately concrete so you can judge us against them.
#Accuracy and sourcing
We aim for factual accuracy on every spec, price and claim. Medical and scientific statements are grounded in the peer-reviewed literature, which we cite. We distinguish independent research from manufacturer-funded studies, and we describe the strength of evidence honestly rather than cherry-picking the most flattering result.
#Measured claims on a health topic
Skincare sits close to health, so we hold to conservative language. LED light may support or improve the appearance of skin; it does not “cure” conditions. We avoid absolute promises, we include contraindications where relevant, and we defer to qualified clinicians on medical questions.
#Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial relationship. No advertiser, affiliate partner or brand gets to review, approve or influence our verdicts before publication. See our independence statement.
#Corrections
When we get something wrong, we fix it promptly and, for anything material, note what changed. Every article carries a “last updated” date. To report an error, use our contact page; we treat corrections as a duty, not a favour.
#Sources and evidence
Evidence-based articles carry a references list of the studies we relied on, so you can check our reasoning yourself. Product facts are sourced to the manufacturer or an authoritative retailer and dated.
#Reader-first, not clicks-first
We would rather tell you a £129 mask is enough, or that you don’t need one at all, than push you toward a pricier pick. If the honest answer is “save your money”, that is the answer you’ll get.