Editorial policy

What this publication is

The Skin Peptide Lab is an independent editorial publication about peptides in skincare. Its promise is peptides, without the hype, and that promise is meant as a working test rather than a slogan: every page should reduce ambiguity, separate evidence from inference, and refuse claims that run past the research.

We do not sell skincare. We do not take payment for coverage. We are not a medical service.

Who writes this — and what that means

This publication is currently written by an interested layperson, not a licensed clinician, dermatologist, or cosmetic chemist. Everything here is a careful reading of published research by someone without formal credentials in the field.

We are stating that plainly because the alternative — implying expertise we do not have — is precisely the behaviour this publication exists to criticise. It also sets the honest limit on what we can offer: we can read a study, describe its design, and be clear about what it did and did not measure. We cannot substitute for professional judgement about your skin.

Scientific review is not yet in place

An independent scientific reviewer is planned, and the review workflow is described below. It is not operating yet. No page on this site currently carries an expert review, and none claims to. If you see a reviewer name and date on a page in future, it will mean a named person with relevant credentials checked that specific page, and the scope of what they checked will be stated.

We would rather run without review badges than display ones that do not mean anything.

How we weigh evidence

Sources are not equal. We rank them roughly in this order:

1. Systematic reviews, and high-quality consensus or regulatory sources relevant to topical cosmetic use.
2. Controlled human topical studies.
3. Other human studies, with their limitations stated.
4. Ex vivo, in vitro, mechanistic, and animal studies.
5. Patents, supplier dossiers, conference material, and manufacturer claims — treated as context, never as independent evidence.
6. Other editorial coverage — used for orientation only, never as the evidentiary basis for a scientific claim.

The confidence scale

Where we summarise the state of evidence, we use five plain labels rather than a numeric score that would imply more precision than exists:

Confidence always attaches to a peptide and a specific claim, not to a peptide on its own. "Copper peptides are well-supported" is not a statement we would make; "copper peptides for wound healing rests on stronger evidence than copper peptides for wrinkle depth" is.

Rules we hold ourselves to

• Cite the claim where it appears, not in a bibliography at the end.
• Link to the DOI, PubMed record, journal page, or regulator where one exists.
• Distinguish the ingredient studied from the finished product sold to consumers. A trial of a formulation is not a trial of one peptide in it.
• Say so when a study used a proprietary blend and the effect cannot be attributed to a single ingredient.
• Disclose study funding, author conflicts, and manufacturer involvement where reported.
• Never convert mechanistic plausibility into demonstrated consumer benefit without flagging the leap. "Upregulates collagen in cell culture" is not "reduces wrinkles".
• Report inconclusive and negative findings, not only the encouraging ones.

How a piece gets made

1. Research: search terms, databases, and cutoff date are logged.
2. Extraction: study design, population, intervention, duration, endpoints, results, and limitations are pulled into structured fields before any conclusion is drafted.
3. Drafting: the piece is written from those fields.
4. Editing: claims are checked against the evidence type, and against this policy.
5. Review: once a scientific reviewer is appointed, accuracy and characterisation of evidence are checked by them, and the page carries their name, credentials, scope, and date.
6. Publication, with dates visible.
7. Revisit: priority pages are reviewed every 6–12 months, or sooner if the evidence materially changes.

Steps 1 to 4, 6 and 7 are in operation today. Step 5 is not — see above.

Corrections

We will make mistakes. When we do, we correct them visibly rather than quietly editing the page.

• Factual errors are fixed as soon as we can confirm the correction.
• Substantive changes — anything altering the meaning, the strength of a claim, or a recommendation — are dated and noted on the page.
• Typographical and formatting fixes are made without a note.
• If a piece is wrong enough that correcting it would not be honest, we withdraw it and say why rather than deleting it silently.

To report an error, reply to any newsletter issue. A dedicated corrections address will be published here once it exists. We would rather hear it from you than leave it standing.

Independence

No brand, retailer, supplier, or advertiser sees an article before publication, and none has any right of review, approval, or veto. Nobody can pay to be included, excluded, ranked, or described more favourably. The full commercial rules are in the advertising and funding policy.

What this is not

Nothing here is medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Peptides in cosmetic products are not medicines, and this publication does not cover injectable, prescribed, or systemic peptide therapies. For anything affecting your skin, health, or medication, speak to a licensed professional.