Glow / GLOW Standard
Editorial document · Version 4.2 · May 2026
GLOW Standard.
The published methodology by which every product on glow.com.au is tested, scored, and published. The five-axis GLOW Score, the six-week test protocol, the editorial firewall, the conflict register, codified here, dated, accountable, and re-audited annually.
What is GLOW Standard?
GLOW Standard is the published methodology behind every score on glow.com.au: a five-axis rubric (efficacy, formulation, tolerability, value, distinction), a six-week minimum test protocol, a named editor on every review, an editorial firewall that keeps commerce out of scoring, and a public conflict register, including GLOW's disclosed connection to Australian Glow.
The four first principles that govern every Glow review.
A short list, written deliberately. Every methodology decision below is downstream of these.
Independence is structural, not promised
Editorial independence is not asserted on a "trust us" basis. It is enforced by structure: a published rubric, a named editor on every review, a documented conflict register, a 35% cap on any single retailer's affiliate share, and the right of any reader to retest a product on our protocol and dispute the score in writing. Independence is what we are willing to be audited on.
Methodology over verdict
A score without a method is decoration. GLOW Score is only meaningful because the protocol that produced it is public. If we cannot show the test, the duration, the panel, the conditions and the editor, the verdict does not run.
Time is the variable that matters most
Cosmetics journalism is built on first impressions. GLOW Standard is built on six-week minimums. A product that performs in week one but fails in week six is, for our purposes, a product that fails. Reviewers are asked to log against time, not against impression.
The reader is the only customer
Brands are not customers. Retailers are not customers. Investors are not customers. The only relationship we owe duty to is the reader who is about to spend their money. Everything below, from the firewall to the corrections policy, is in service of that single fiduciary obligation.
Independence is not a claim. It is the set of structural commitments we have published, dated, and made auditable.GLOW Standard · first stated March 2014 · restated May 2026
GLOW Score is calculated across five axes.
Each axis is scored 0–10 by the named editor on the file, weighted as below, and re-validated by a second editor before publication.
Efficacy
Does the product produce the result it claims, in the conditions Australian buyers will actually use it in. Tested via documented before/after, multi-tester panel, six-week minimum.
Formulation
INCI verification, active concentration, vehicle quality, stability across temperature and time, freedom from filler. Cross-checked against published dermatological literature.
Tolerability
Irritation rate, allergen burden, sensitiser presence, fragrance load. Scored against panel response across the four broad skin profiles we recruit for.
Value
Performance per dollar in current Australian retail conditions. Adjusted for size, concentration, and frequency of expected re-purchase. Not a cheapness score.
Distinction
Editorial judgement: does this product offer something the category genuinely needs, or is it a competent restatement of an existing standard. The most subjective axis. The one we are asked about most often.
Score banding
- 9.0, 10.0Category-defining. We expect a product in this band to be genuinely difficult to outperform.
- 8.0, 8.9Excellent. Recommended without qualification for the audience identified.
- 7.0, 7.9Solid. Worth buying with the right brief.
- 6.0, 6.9Mid-tier. Defensible at the price, beaten at price-equal level.
- 5.0, 5.9Concerns. Specific issues identified in the review body.
- Below 5.0Not recommended. We publish these because honesty about failure is part of the duty to the reader.
What GLOW Score does not include: brand prestige, social media presence, packaging design (separate editorial note), founder narrative, or affiliate rate. None of these factors enter the calculation.
The six-week test protocol.
Every product reviewed under GLOW Standard moves through the same nine documented steps. Deviations are noted in the review.
- Acquisition. Products are purchased at standard Australian retail price by a member of the editorial team. We do not accept PR samples for graded reviews. PR samples may be flagged in unscored editorial coverage, but never enter the Score.
- Verification. Batch number, expiry date, and INCI list are photographed and filed against the brand's published claims. Any discrepancy halts the review pending brand response.
- Panel recruitment. A minimum of four testers across the four skin profiles we cover (dry, oily, combination, sensitive). Panel demographic skew is logged for the review.
- Baseline. Standardised photographic baseline taken on day zero, lighting calibrated, no other product introductions in the test window.
- Use phase. Six weeks minimum, used as directed, logged daily by the panel against the standardised diary template. Phase extends to twelve weeks for anti-ageing and pigmentation claims.
- Photographic re-test. Identical conditions to baseline. Held for blind comparison by a second editor.
- Editor scoring. The named editor on the file scores all five axes with written justification for each. Reviewers cannot see scores from prior Glow reviews of competitor products.
- Second-editor review. A second editor reviews the score against the evidence and either confirms, queries in writing, or sends back for re-test.
- Publication. Score, date, named editor, panel skew, and key evidence published with the review. The full diary log is held on file and made available on written request from a verified buyer who has the same product.
Re-test schedule. Best-of pages are re-tested annually. Individual reviews are re-tested on any of these triggers: brand reformulation announcement, retail price change of more than 20%, three or more reader-flagged disputes, or four years elapsed since publication.
The editorial firewall.
A list of things commerce cannot do to editorial. Documented because verbal commitments do not survive year three.
Brands cannot
- See a review or score before publication
- Negotiate, dispute, or revise a published score except by submitting a written correction request through the public corrections page
- Purchase placement in a Glow ranking, ever, under any product name or label
- Request the removal of a review for any reason other than factual inaccuracy
- Influence which products are tested next, including via PR submission
Retailers cannot
- Influence which retailer is featured first in any "where to buy" block
- Hold an affiliate share above 35% of total Glow affiliate revenue in any rolling six-month period (cap enforced by the publisher and audited)
- Pay for editorial placement of any kind
Editorial commits, in return
- To publish a review on every product tested, including the products that fail
- To label every commercial relationship visibly on every page that benefits from it
- To name the editor on every review and make their credentials public
- To accept written correction requests from any reader and to respond within ten business days
The firewall also applies to the publication's own brand interest. GLOW's connection to Australian Glow carries a standing public disclosure, and Australian Glow products are scored on the same rubric as every competitor's.
The conflict register.
A current snapshot of the commercial and personal relationships that any reader of a Glow review should know about. Updated quarterly, audited annually.
| Relationship | Counterparty | Effect on editorial | Disclosed since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand interest | Australian Glow | The publication's most significant interest. Standing disclosure on every affected page; AG products scored on the standard rubric like any competitor | Standing disclosure |
| Sister publication | Glow Brands (glowbrands.com.au) | Brand directory companion; cross-referenced from reviews; separately edited | Feb 2025 |
| Sister publication | Peptide Reviews (peptidereviews.com.au) | Peptide and longevity coverage; same five-axis methodology; separately edited | Apr 2025 |
| Sister publication | Tattoo Advisor (tattooadvisor.com.au) | Studio and aftercare directory; adjacent category; separately edited | Aug 2025 |
| Sister publication | NDIS Select (ndisselect.com.au) | NDIS provider rankings; same methodology applied to disability services; separately edited | Oct 2025 |
| Sister publication | Pet Compare (petcompare.co) | Pet products and services; same firewall; separately edited | Jan 2026 |
| Sister publication | AI Discovery (aidiscovery.com.au) | AI tool rankings; newest in the network; separately edited | Mar 2026 |
| Affiliate retailer | Adore Beauty | Affiliate links, capped at the 35% rule; never affects ranking order | Jul 2014 |
| Affiliate retailer | Sephora AU, Mecca, Priceline, Chemist Warehouse | Affiliate links, capped at the 35% rule; never affects ranking order | 2014–2022 |
Editorial conflicts of interest declared by individual editors are listed on each editor's page at /editors/. New conflicts must be declared in writing within ten business days of arising.
The corrections policy.
If we got it wrong, we say so on the page where we said it. Permanently.
Any reader, brand representative, or third party may submit a correction request via team@glow.com.au. We respond within ten business days.
What we correct
Factual inaccuracies in product specification, INCI, price, or claim. Misattributed quotes. Mathematical errors in scoring. Identified panel demographic errors.
What we don't
Editorial opinion clearly labelled as such. Score banding decisions, except via the formal re-test request route. Headline tone, where the underlying claim is correct.
How corrections appear. Corrections are appended to the bottom of the affected review with date and brief description. The original copy is not removed; if the score changes as a result, both scores are visible with the rationale for the change. Reviews are never silently edited.
The Standard's own update log.
This document evolves. Every change to GLOW Standard is logged here, dated, and signed.
- May 2026 · v4.2Distinction axis weight reduced from 15% to 10%. Five-year audit found Distinction was over-weighted relative to its predictive power on long-term reader satisfaction. Efficacy weight increased from 25% to 30% to compensate., GLOW Editorial Team.
- Jan 2026 · v4.135% retailer cap formally added. Previously a verbal commitment between editor and publisher; now a published, audited rule., Jackson Wilson, publisher.
- Aug 2025 · v4.0Six-week minimum extended to twelve weeks for anti-ageing claims. The shorter window was producing reviews that retracted after six months. Reader trust was the casualty., GLOW Editorial Team.
- Jul 2022 · v3.0Conflict register made public. Previously held internally; now published as a live page with quarterly updates., GLOW Editorial Team.
- Mar 2014 · v1.0GLOW Standard first published. Initial five-axis rubric, six-week minimum, named-editor accountability., Founding editorial team.
Use this document
Cite us, audit us, copy us.
GLOW Standard is published openly because the category is improved by every publication that adopts a documented methodology. Take it. Adapt it. Hold us to it.