Editorial Standards & Ethics
The standard we work to
Cannabis media has spent years earning its reputation for recycled marketing copy and effects descriptions invented from thin air. CBD STRAINS ONLY exists to be the opposite of that, and this page is the working rulebook: how we research, how we review, where the money is allowed to touch the work, and where it is not. It is written so that readers can check our conduct against it.
Research and sourcing
Every factual claim in our work must trace to a source we can name, ranked by reliability: primary sources first, which for us means certificates of analysis from testing laboratories, breeder and seed bank records for lineage, peer reviewed studies for science, and official government sources for legal status. Secondary reporting is used for context, never as the sole support for a checkable claim. The full verification workflow, including how we handle the chronic mess of strain naming, lives in our Fact-Checking Policy. Where the evidence is genuinely thin, which in cannabis science is often, we say so in the article instead of papering over the gap with confident prose.
How we review strains
A strain profile or review on this site is built from documented characteristics, not vibes. We compile the reported lineage and cross check it against breeder records; we gather available lab data on cannabinoid and terpene ranges rather than quoting a single cherry picked test; we distinguish clearly between what testing shows, what users commonly report, and what remains anecdote. Effects language is deliberately framed as typical reports, because individual responses vary, a point our Disclaimer makes at length. Where a strain’s history is contested, and many are, we present the competing accounts and their evidence instead of picking the prettiest story.
How we review products
CBD product reviews follow a consistent method:
- Verification before evaluation. We locate the product’s certificate of analysis, confirm it comes from a genuine third party laboratory, check that it matches the batch and the label claims for cannabinoid content, and check the contaminant panels. A product whose lab documentation cannot be verified does not get a favorable review, whatever it is like to use.
- Label scrutiny. Ingredients, claimed strengths, serving math, and any health claims are checked. Products making medical claims their evidence cannot support are called out for it.
- Practical assessment. Format, usability, taste where relevant, value against comparable products, and the company’s transparency about sourcing and testing.
- Documented conclusions. Every score or verdict must be traceable to the evidence above, and a reader should be able to see why a product scored as it did.
Money and the work
This is the section that matters most, so it is the bluntest.
- No pay for praise. Coverage cannot be bought, and neither can a score. No brand can pay for a review, pay to improve one, or pay to make one disappear. There is no rate card for editorial coverage because there is no product; offers of this kind are declined and, if repeated, ignored.
- Affiliate links are disclosed, always. Some articles contain links from which we may earn a commission on purchases. Pages carrying them say so plainly. Affiliate arrangements are made after editorial conclusions exist, not before, and a product’s affiliate potential has zero weight in whether or how we cover it. Critical reviews of products we could earn from are published without hesitation, and the archive shows it.
- Free samples do not buy outcomes. Where a reviewed product was provided by the brand rather than purchased, the review says so. Provision of a sample buys the brand nothing: no preview, no veto, no soft handling.
- Advertising is walled off. Advertisers get audience, not influence. They have no advance sight of coverage and no say in it. Anything sponsored is labeled as such and is never disguised as a review or a profile. The mechanics are on our Advertise With Us and Ownership and Funding pages.
Conduct
Team members do not hold undisclosed financial interests in companies we cover, do not accept gifts beyond review samples handled as above, and recuse themselves from coverage where a personal connection exists. We do not do surprise ambush quotes: when reporting requires a company’s response, we ask for it before publication and include it fairly. We treat readers who write to us with the same respect we ask of them.
Responsibility to the reader
We write about a substance that is legally complex and medically nontrivial, for adults, in jurisdictions where the material is lawful for them. We do not glamorize excess, we do not market to minors, we do not publish medical advice, and we frame consumption information with the cautions it needs. When we err, the Corrections Policy governs, and it is enforced by a second set of eyes: corrections are handled by someone other than the original author.
The team behind the byline
We publish under the site’s name because our process is collective: research, writing, verification, and editing are separate passes, usually by different people. The absence of individual bylines never means absence of accountability; the publication answers for every word, and the address for holding us to that is support@cbdstrainsonly.com.
