Editorial Standards
How we produce, fact-check, and update content - and the rules we hold ourselves to on independence and disclosure.
How content is produced
Every article and plant profile is built from curated horticultural references and structured data, then put through the following process before it goes live:
- Source gathering. Relevant horticultural references, manufacturer data, and user research are compiled first. Every draft is grounded in these specific sources, not in generalised assumptions.
- Automated QA gate. Each draft is scored on factual grounding against cited sources, FTC disclosure compliance, claim uniqueness, and structural completeness. Drafts that fail the gate are revised before proceeding.
- Human review. A human editor reads the draft against the source material, checks factual claims, adjusts misleading framing, and approves the final text. Items flagged by the QA gate receive closer scrutiny.
- Publication and updates. Approved pieces are published with a last-updated date and revised over time as products, prices, and best practices change.
Accuracy and sourcing standards
We do not publish factual claims we cannot source. Our sourcing hierarchy, in order of preference:
- Peer-reviewed academic literature (plant science, hydroponics, crop physiology)
- University cooperative extension publications and USDA resources
- Established horticultural reference texts with named authors and publishers
- Manufacturer technical documentation (accepted for specifications; cross-checked against independent reports for performance claims)
- Verified user data - aggregated, cross-referenced across multiple independent sources, and treated as supporting evidence rather than primary data
Where sources conflict, we use the more conservative figure and note the discrepancy. Where credible data is simply unavailable, we say so explicitly rather than filling the gap with speculation.
Corrections policy
We correct errors promptly. If you find a factual error on any CounterRoots page, email editorial@counterroots.com with the URL and the specific claim you believe is incorrect, along with any source you can point to.
We will investigate and, if a correction is warranted, update the page within a reasonable timeframe. Significant corrections are noted inline on the article with a date stamp. We do not silently delete or overwrite errors without acknowledgement.
Editorial independence
Rankings and recommendations on CounterRoots are not for sale. Brands cannot pay for placement, a higher score, or to suppress a negative review. The scoring rubric used for system reviews is applied identically to all products, regardless of affiliate status, brand size, or advertising spend (we do not run display advertising at this time).
CounterRoots is founder-led and independently funded through affiliate commissions. There is no external investor with editorial influence and no parent company with commercial relationships that could compromise our coverage.
Affiliate disclosure summary
Some links on CounterRoots are affiliate links. If you purchase a product after clicking an affiliate link, we may earn a commission from the retailer. This happens at no extra cost to you.
Every page that contains affiliate links displays a prominent disclosure banner. Affiliate relationships do not influence our scores or recommendations. See our full Affiliate Disclosure for the complete policy, including which programmes we participate in and how the relationship is structured.
What we are still working on
We are a new publication. Some things we intend to improve over time:
- Moving from aggregated-spec reviews toward in-house, long-term grow tests on hydroponic systems
- Expanding citation footnotes inline on published articles so readers can trace claims directly to sources
- Publishing version history on pages so readers can see what has changed and when
We think stating these gaps plainly is more useful to readers than pretending they do not exist.
Questions
Editorial enquiries: editorial@counterroots.com