Editorial Standards
At Radiant Nail Clean, we are committed to delivering accurate, evidence-based information about skin cleansing and dietary practices. Our editorial principles ensure transparency, integrity, and accountability in every article we publish.
We believe our readers deserve content they can trust—crafted by experienced writers, reviewed rigorously, and corrected promptly when needed.
Our Editorial Principles
Accuracy First
Every claim in our articles is backed by reliable sources, scientific literature, and expert consultation. We cite our sources transparently and update information as new research emerges. Our writers verify facts thoroughly before publication, and our editorial team conducts secondary review to catch errors.
Transparency
We disclose our author credentials, editorial process, and any limitations in our content. If an article explores a topic we cannot fully cover, we say so. We do not hide conflicts of interest, and we clearly distinguish editorial content from any partnerships or external contributions.
Balance & Objectivity
We present multiple viewpoints on debated topics and acknowledge where scientific consensus exists versus where opinions differ. Our goal is to inform, not persuade. We avoid sensationalism and do not exaggerate benefits or risks of any dietary or skincare approach.
Accountability & Corrections
We take responsibility for our errors and correct them promptly. When a mistake is found—whether factual, contextual, or otherwise—we publish a correction notice. We welcome reader feedback and investigate legitimate concerns about our content with care and diligence.
Our Fact-Checking Process
Research & Source Verification
Our writers begin by consulting peer-reviewed journals, expert publications, and established health resources. We prioritise primary research over secondary sources and cross-reference claims across multiple authoritative databases. Every major fact is logged with its source for transparency.
Expert Consultation
For articles on nutrition, skincare science, and health topics, we consult with qualified experts. These conversations help us understand nuance, acknowledge uncertainty, and avoid oversimplification. We do not claim expert endorsement unless explicitly granted and disclosed.
Editorial Review
Before publication, every article undergoes independent review by a member of our editorial board. The reviewer checks factual accuracy, assesses source quality, and flags any claims that require clarification or modification. This step catches errors before they reach readers.
Publication & Updates
Once published, articles remain subject to monitoring. We track new research and scientific developments in our content areas. When significant new evidence emerges, we update articles with fresh information and note the update date prominently. Readers always know when content was last reviewed.
Our Editorial Leadership
Sarah Mitchell
Editor-in-Chief
Sarah holds a degree in Nutrition Science and brings 12 years of health journalism experience. She oversees editorial strategy, fact-checking standards, and author development. Her commitment to evidence-based writing shapes every piece we publish.
James Hartley
Science Reviewer
Dr. Hartley is a research scientist with expertise in dermatology and dietary science. He reviews articles for scientific accuracy, evaluates study quality, and advises on emerging research. His rigorous approach ensures our content meets professional standards.
Emma Richardson
Corrections & Engagement Editor
Emma manages reader feedback, investigates submitted corrections, and ensures our articles evolve with reader input. She maintains our corrections log and coordinates updates across the site. Her work keeps us accountable to our audience.
Corrections Policy
How We Handle Errors
Accuracy is our priority. When we publish an article, we strive to ensure every fact is correct. However, errors can occur—a misquote, a misinterpreted study, an outdated statistic. When they do, we correct them promptly and transparently.
Minor corrections (e.g. spelling, grammar) are made silently. Substantive factual corrections are published prominently with a "Correction" notice dated and explaining what was changed and why. This approach helps readers understand the scope of the error and trust our commitment to accuracy.
Reporting an Error
If you spot an inaccuracy in our content, we want to hear about it. Please contact our editorial team with:
- The article title and publication date
- The specific claim or sentence in question
- What the correct information is, with sources if possible
- Your name and contact information (optional)
Email us at [email protected] with the subject line "Editorial Correction." We will investigate within 5 business days and respond to you.
What Happens After We Investigate
Our team reviews your submission against our sources and any additional research. If we agree an error has been made, we:
- Correct the article and publish a dated correction notice
- Notify you (if contact details provided) of the correction
- Log the correction in our public corrections archive
- Reflect on the error to prevent similar mistakes in future articles
If we believe no error exists after investigation, we will explain our reasoning and point you to the sources we used. We remain open to further discussion if you believe we have misunderstood.
Our Citation & Source Standards
What We Cite
We cite scientific studies, government health agencies, professional organisations, and credible expert sources. When discussing a fact, we provide a reference—either a link, a citation, or an expert name—so readers can verify our claims independently. We prefer primary research over summaries and secondhand interpretations.
Source Hierarchy
Our editorial guidelines prioritise sources as follows:
1. Peer-reviewed scientific journals and studies
Primary research with rigorous methodology
2. Government health agencies and official guidance
NHS, Public Health England, regulatory bodies
3. Professional organisations and expert consensus
Medical and nutritional societies with established credibility
4. Expert interviews and qualified specialist input
Practising professionals with relevant qualifications
5. Reputable educational and news sources
When used to supplement, never as primary evidence
Author Credentials & Transparency
Author Qualifications
Every author on Radiant Nail Clean demonstrates relevant expertise or experience. We publish writer bios that disclose education, professional background, and areas of specialisation. Readers can understand who has written an article and why they are qualified to discuss the topic.
Conflict of Interest
If an author has a financial interest, personal relationship, or other potential conflict related to an article's subject, we disclose it. We do not allow conflicts to dictate content, but we make them visible so readers can make informed judgments about what they are reading.
Reader Feedback & Privacy
We value reader input. If you have a comment, question, or concern about our articles, we encourage you to reach out. You may contact us anonymously if you prefer—we do not publish names or details without explicit permission.
When you report an error or provide feedback, we treat your information with respect. We use it only for editorial purposes and will not share it with third parties without your consent. For details on how we handle personal information, please review our Privacy Policy.
Contact Our Editorial Team
Email: [email protected]
Address: Church Lane 54, Liverpool
Subject line: "Editorial Feedback" or "Correction Request"
Our Commitment to You
Radiant Nail Clean exists to provide clear, honest, and trustworthy information about skin health and nutrition. We take this responsibility seriously and continually work to improve our standards. Thank you for holding us accountable—your trust is our most valuable asset.
Stay Informed
Get our latest articles on skin cleansing and dietary wellbeing delivered to your inbox.
We respect your privacy. Privacy Policy