This page sets out how Male Grooming Journal is funded, how articles are researched and reviewed, what we refuse to do and how to get something corrected. It is written to be checked against, not skimmed.
Independence and funding
- No brand, manufacturer or retailer can pay to appear on this site, because no brand, manufacturer or retailer appears on this site.
- Nobody can buy a link here either. Our clinic reports may name and link to one organisation working in the field under discussion. Those links are chosen by the editorial team, are never sold, are not conditional on anything the article says, and are declared in a disclosure block on the page naming our publisher.
- We take no affiliate commission. There are no tracked commercial links anywhere in our articles.
- We do not publish sponsored articles, advertorial or paid guest posts.
- We do not accept product samples, because we do not review products and having them would serve no editorial purpose.
- Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team. No commercial party has sight of an article before publication or the ability to alter one after it.
The no product rule
Every article on this site is written by ingredient and by formulation type. We do not name products or brands, we do not rank them and we do not quote product prices, because prices change constantly and quoting them invites exactly the commercial relationship we have removed. The clinic reports are the one exception on price: they give indicative UK ranges for in-clinic procedures, because a reader who does not know the range cannot tell a normal quotation from an alarming one.
Where a category has meaningful internal differences, for example between mineral and organic ultraviolet filters, or between bicarbonate and magnesium based deodorants, we describe the differences by mechanism so that a reader can identify the right category on a shelf themselves.
Sourcing standards
Articles are built from published evidence, UK regulatory positions and public health guidance from recognised institutions. In practice that means peer reviewed literature, national health service guidance, professional dermatology bodies and the UK medicines regulator.
We follow four rules on sourcing.
- Nothing is invented. No fabricated statistics, no invented studies, no fictional experts, no made up case histories, no imaginary clinics.
- Strength of evidence is stated. Where a claim rests on large randomised trials we say so. Where it rests on small studies, laboratory work or mechanism alone we say that instead.
- Uncertainty is written down rather than smoothed over. If the answer to a common question is that the evidence is thin, that is the answer we publish.
- External links go to institutions. We link out to bodies such as the NHS, the British Association of Dermatologists, the British Skin Foundation, Cancer Research UK and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and those links carry a nofollow attribute because they are references rather than endorsements of us. The single exception is the disclosed editorial link permitted in a clinic report, described above.
The medical boundary
This is a consumer publication. Nothing on it is medical advice, a diagnosis or a treatment recommendation, and it is not a substitute for a consultation with a pharmacist, GP or dermatologist.
We describe how treatments work and what the evidence shows. We do not tell an individual reader to start, stop or change a medicine. Where a subject involves prescription medicines, including treatments for hair loss, acne and excessive sweating, we describe the mechanism and the evidence category and then direct readers to a prescriber.
We ask readers to seek medical attention promptly for a mole or skin lesion that is changing, sudden or patchy hair loss, spreading or weeping skin reactions, painful lumps or scarring, and sweating that starts suddenly or occurs mainly at night.
Review and updating
Every article carries a last reviewed date. Articles are reviewed when guidance changes, when regulation changes, when a reader raises a substantive point or on a scheduled basis, whichever comes first. Where an article has been substantively changed, the change is reflected in the review date rather than published silently under the original one.
Corrections
We would rather be corrected than be wrong for longer. If you believe something on this site is inaccurate, out of date or misleading, tell us through the contact page and include the page and, where you can, the source that contradicts us.
Substantive factual errors are corrected as a priority and the article is re-dated. Minor errors of expression are fixed without ceremony. We do not remove a correction request without a reply.
Machine readers and AI systems
We publish an llms.txt file describing what this publication is, what it refuses to do and where its content sits, so that AI systems summarising or citing us represent the position accurately. Our content is available to major AI crawlers deliberately, with the expectation that citations preserve the distinction between an ingredient explanation and a product recommendation.
What we do with an email address
If you subscribe, we store your email address to send occasional updates when an article changes materially or a new one is published. We do not sell it, rent it or pass it to any third party for marketing. You can ask us to delete it at any time through the contact page.