EDITORIAL STANDARD
Written by Marcia E Cripe, RN
I'm Marcia Cripe, a Registered Nurse and the founder and editor of Skin Logic. This page explains, in plain language, how I decide what goes on this site, how I verify it, and where you should be skeptical of me.
Skin Logic is a small, independent publication. That means these standards are not aspirational — they are how I actually work.
WHAT SKIN LOGIC IS
Skin Logic is an educational resource about how skin functions, what disrupts it, how ingredients work, and what the evidence actually supports.
It is not a clinical practice, a substitute for a dermatologist, or a product-review site pretending to be neutral. If you need a diagnosis or treatment, you need a real appointment with a qualified provider. Skin Logic is here to help you understand what your provider is telling you, what your skin is telling you, and where the internet is misleading you.
WHO WRITES THE CONTENT
I write and edit every article on Skin Logic. My background is as a Registered Nurse practicing since 2008, with clinical experience in home acute care, long-term care, home health, and wound care — the last of which is the closest clinical parallel to the barrier repair work that anchors much of this site. I currently work as an Intake Coordinator for inpatient rehabilitation.
I am a nurse, not a dermatologist, not a cosmetic chemist, and not a research scientist. I am transparent about that because it defines the scope of what I can responsibly claim. My role on Skin Logic is to translate peer-reviewed dermatologic and cosmetic science into language a general reader can actually use, and to verify — line by line — that what I publish matches the primary sources I cite.
HOW I RESEARCH AND VERIFY CONTENT
The workflow for every article is the same:
MY EDITORIAL WORKFLOW
1. Start with primary literature. I search PubMed, PMC, peer-reviewed dermatology and cosmetic-chemistry journals, and recognized textbook references. I do not build articles from other blogs, Reddit threads, or product marketing.
2. Prefer synthesis over single studies. When multiple sources point the same direction, I weight the finding higher than an isolated study — even a compelling one. When sources conflict, I say so.
3. Verify every clinical claim against a real source. Every claim presented as clinical or evidence-based is linked to the study or reference it comes from. If a claim in a draft cannot be sourced, I remove it or reframe it as personal observation.
4. Flag the limits. When the underlying evidence is thin, indirect, or drawn from an adjacent field, I say that in the article itself — not in a footnote. Readers deserve to know the difference between "well-established" and "reasonable extrapolation."
5. Separate mechanism from prescription. I explain how things work. I do not tell you which specific product to buy for your specific skin, because that is a clinical decision and I am not your clinician.
SOURCES I RELY ON
- Peer-reviewed dermatology, cosmetic science, and wound care journals indexed on PubMed and PMC
- Recognized dermatology textbooks and clinical references
- Position statements from professional dermatology organizations
- Regulatory and safety databases such as the Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel
- Government research resources (NIH, FDA, and equivalents)
I generally avoid brand-published white papers, influencer content, and secondary blog aggregation as primary sources. If they appear in an article at all, it is as context, not as evidence.
HOW I HANDLE AI
Artificial intelligence tools may be used to assist with structural organization, formatting, outlines, and draft scaffolding. AI is not used to generate clinical positions, source interpretations, or editorial conclusions on this site.
Put another way: AI can help me organize what I want to say. It does not decide what is true. That verification is my responsibility as the RN of record, and I do it against primary literature before anything is published.
HOW I HANDLE UNCERTAINTY
Skin science is a moving field. Ingredient consensus shifts. New studies contradict older ones. Mechanisms once considered settled turn out to be more complex.
HOW I DEAL WITH IT
I try to write articles that will still be broadly correct in three years, which means leaning on findings that have been replicated and staying skeptical of headline-driven single studies. Where an area is genuinely uncertain — cosmetic peptides, some newer barrier ingredients, long-term outcomes of ingredient combinations — I say so directly in the article.
If a piece of evidence changes materially, the article gets updated with the new date and a note explaining what changed.
HOW I HANDLE CORRECTIONS
If I get something wrong — a misread source, a wrong number, a claim that no longer holds up — I want to know. Corrections are made in the article itself, dated, and noted at the bottom of the affected page when the change is material. I do not silently rewrite articles to make old positions disappear.
If you spot an error, please use the contact form on the site. I read every message.
HOW I HANDLE COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Skin Logic is reader-supported and may participate in display advertising, affiliate links, product reviews (purchased and gifted), and occasional sponsored content. The full policy — including how each channel is disclosed — is spelled out in the Terms of Service.
The single principle behind all of them: commercial relationships do not decide clinical positions. If a product is a poor fit for a given skin concern, I say so, regardless of whether I would earn a commission on it. If I cannot verify a sponsor's claim against peer-reviewed literature, that claim comes out of the article before publication.
WHAT I DO NOT DO
To keep this page honest, here is what Skin Logic is not:
- Not medical advice. Nothing on Skin Logic diagnoses, treats, cures, or prevents a medical condition. If your skin problem is serious, reactive, spreading, or bleeding, please see a dermatologist. See the site-wide Medical Disclaimer for the full clinical framing.
- Not a clinical practice. Reading articles on Skin Logic does not create a nurse-patient relationship. I cannot respond to individual case questions or replace your provider.
- Not a neutral aggregator. I have a point of view — that barrier health precedes anti-aging, that most people are cleansing too aggressively, and that ingredient lists are more useful than marketing claims. I try to signal my point of view clearly rather than hide it inside apparently-neutral prose.
WHY THIS PAGE EXISTS
Most editorial-standards pages exist because a lawyer said they should. This one exists because I want you to be able to check my work.
If you are here doing due diligence — comparing Skin Logic against other skin science publications, evaluating whether the sources actually say what I claim they say, or trying to decide whether I am credible enough to spend your reading time on — I want you to have everything you need to make that call.
A NOTE FROM ME
I built Skin Logic because I could not find a resource that treated readers as capable of handling actual science — not oversimplified, not marketing-fluffed, not fear-based. I wanted a place where a working nurse could sit down with primary literature and translate it fairly.
These standards will evolve as the site grows. When they do, the "Last Updated" date at the top of this page will change, and I will document what changed and why.
— Marcia E Cripe, RN
MEDICAL DISCLAIMER
All content on Skin Logic is for educational and research purposes only. Clinical nursing oversight is utilized strictly to verify the biochemical accuracy of peer-reviewed literature.
Consumption of this content does not establish a nurse-patient relationship and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or dermatological treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider or dermatologist for specific skin concerns or medical conditions.