Home / How We Research
Trust
How We Research
Where the information in our articles comes from.
Where we get our facts
For anything regulatory we go to the regulator: NPRA (the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency) for cosmetic notification, MDA (the Medical Device Authority) for devices, JAKIM for Halal, and the Ministry of Health. For standards we cite the standard itself with its number — ISO 22716 for cosmetics GMP, for example. For science we use published research and recognised health authorities.
Rules differ by market, so we say which country we mean. A requirement in Malaysia is not a requirement in the EU, and we do not blur the two.
General blogs, supplier marketing and AI summaries are not sources. If one points us at something useful, we go and read the original.
Our own experience
Being a manufacturer is our best source and our biggest bias, so we handle it carefully. When something comes from our own production we say so, and give the scope it applies to. “In our own manufacturing, for this format, at these volumes” is a useful observation. “The industry always does this” usually is not, and we do not write it unless we can source it.
Numbers, not adjectives
A specific can be checked; an adjective cannot. So we write real ranges, with units, a market and a date — “cosmetics OEM development typically runs 8–16 weeks in Malaysia, though stability testing, custom packaging and regulatory work extend it” rather than “fast turnaround”. Estimates are labelled as estimates.
Checking and dating
Substantial articles are written by a named contributor and checked by a second person before publication, with technical or regulatory review where the subject needs it. The review date on an article is the month someone actually reviewed it.
We leave out what we cannot source, and anything confidential to a client — their formulations, pricing and process details are theirs, not ours to publish.
