Editorial Standards
The standards behind every word we publish.
Our methodology tells you what we evaluate. This page tells you how we write about it — what sources we trust, how we fact-check, and what we’ll never say.
Source-verified · Human-written · Publicly corrected
Most websites in the wellness space treat editorial standards as a formality — a page filled with platitudes about quality and care that nobody actually checks against the published content. We’ve tried to write the opposite of that.
Every section below is something we can be held to. The source hierarchy is the actual ladder we climb when we cite evidence. The fact-checking process is the actual sequence every article goes through before publishing. The banned phrases list is the actual list our writers see when they take an assignment.
If you ever read something on this site that violates one of these standards, that’s a mistake worth reporting. Our contact page is the fastest way to reach us, and we publish corrections openly when we get something wrong.
The Source Hierarchy
What counts as evidence.
Not all sources are equal. Here is the ladder we climb when we cite evidence for any claim about an essential oil.
Peer-reviewed primary research
Studies published in indexed scientific journals — PubMed-listed clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. The gold standard for any health claim.
Established reference textbooks
Robert Tisserand and Rodney Young’s Essential Oil Safety, Salvatore Battaglia’s The Complete Guide to Aromatherapy, and similar peer-respected reference works written by credentialed authors.
Professional industry organizations
Position papers and educational materials from the National Association for Holistic Aromatherapy (NAHA), the Alliance of International Aromatherapists (AIA), the Tisserand Institute, and government health agencies.
Manufacturer documentation
GC/MS reports, certificates of analysis, and verifiable sourcing documentation from brands themselves. Used for factual claims about specific products, never for general health claims.
Traditional and historical use
Documented historical applications across cultures. Useful for context and ethnobotanical accuracy, but explicitly labeled as traditional use — never presented as evidence of efficacy.
Wikipedia, blog posts, social media, and content from competing review sites are not acceptable sources for any factual claim, regardless of how the information presents itself.
The Fact-Checking Process
How every article gets verified.
Every published article on this site moves through the same five-step verification process before it goes live.
Source documentation
Before drafting begins, the writer compiles a source list for every claim the article will make. Each source is documented with full citation information, including author, publication, date, and DOI or URL. No claim enters the draft without a documented source.
Claim-by-claim verification
During editing, every factual claim in the draft is checked back against its source. If a source has been mischaracterized or stretched, the claim is rewritten to match what the source actually says — or removed entirely. We do not soften claims to keep them in.
Independent second read
Before publication, a second editor reads the article without referring to the source list, then independently verifies any claim that seemed surprising or unusual. The goal is to catch problems the first writer might have missed because they were close to the material.
Safety review
For any article covering essential oil use — dilution guidance, application methods, oils for specific populations — a final safety pass cross-references Tisserand and Young’s published safety contraindications. Articles that fail safety review are returned for revision, never published with caveats.
Publication and post-publication review
After publication, articles are re-reviewed annually for accuracy, with updates triggered immediately when new research is published or when reader feedback identifies an error. Every article shows its original publication date and most recent update date.
If a claim can’t be sourced, it doesn’t get printed. If a source gets misread, the claim gets corrected.
Editorial Rule · Essential Oils Index
Authors and Contributors
Who is allowed to write what.
Not every writer is qualified to write every kind of article. We assign topics based on demonstrated competence, not convenience.
Writer Requirements
What qualifies a writer for this site.
Anyone writing for Essential Oils Index must demonstrate research competence before being assigned a single article. Writing skill alone is not enough — wellness content failures are almost always research failures, not prose failures.
Before any writer’s first published article, they must:
- Provide writing samples that demonstrate proper source citation
- Complete a paid trial article that is fact-checked at the same standard as published work
- Read and sign our editorial standards document, including the banned-phrases list
- Disclose any current or former financial relationships with essential oils brands
Writers who consistently produce research-grounded work over time may earn topic specializations. Writers who repeatedly stretch sources, miss safety considerations, or violate our voice standards are not given additional assignments.
Author Attribution
How bylines and credentials work.
Every article on this site shows its author and the date it was last reviewed. For articles covering safety-sensitive topics — pregnancy, children, pets, medical interactions — the article also lists the editorial reviewer who performed the safety pass.
Where contributors hold relevant credentials, those credentials are noted. Where they don’t, the article relies entirely on cited sources rather than the author’s personal authority. We never imply expertise the writer doesn’t have.
If an article has been substantially revised since publication, the revision history is accessible from the article page. Minor edits (typos, formatting) are not noted; substantive changes are.
Our AI Policy
How we use — and don’t use — AI tools.
Generative AI changed publishing fast. Here’s exactly where we use it and where we refuse to.
What We Use AI For
Tools, not authors.
We use AI tools for research assistance, outline generation, grammar checking, and copy editing. A writer might ask an AI tool to summarize a research paper, suggest article structures, or check whether a sentence reads clearly. These uses save time and improve consistency.
What we do not do is publish AI-generated content as if it were human-written. Every article on this site is written, edited, and fact-checked by humans. AI never has the final word on phrasing, claims, or recommendations. The voice you read on this site is a person’s voice — not a model’s approximation of one.
This policy exists because wellness content written by AI tends to fail in the exact ways that matter most: it conflates correlation with causation, repeats common misconceptions confidently, and produces plausible-sounding sentences that fall apart on close reading. The shortcut isn’t worth the risk to readers.
Language Standards
The words we use, and the words we don’t.
Specific language carries specific implications. These are the choices we’ve made about what to say.
Phrases we never use
- Therapeutic grade — A marketing phrase with no regulatory meaning. No agency certifies essential oils as therapeutic grade.
- Medical grade — Identical issue. No regulatory body issues this designation for essential oils.
- FDA approved — Essential oils are not FDA approved. Claiming so is illegal.
- Cures, treats, heals — Specific medical claims that essential oils cannot legally make.
- Doctor recommended — Without specific verification of a specific doctor’s specific recommendation.
- Clinically proven — Implies a level of evidence that essential oil research rarely meets.
- Powerful, potent, miraculous — Marketing fluff that means nothing measurable.
- Pure — Vague and unverifiable; we use specific chemical descriptors instead.
Phrases we use instead
- Research suggests — When there is published research supporting a claim.
- Traditionally used for — When discussing historical or cultural applications.
- Evidence indicates — When peer-reviewed studies support a finding.
- May support — When discussing potential benefits without overstating certainty.
- Some users report — For anecdotal observations clearly labeled as such.
- Third-party tested — When verified by an independent lab.
- Independently verified — When confirmed by an external source we trust.
- The research is mixed — When the evidence does not clearly support either conclusion.
Corrections Policy
What happens when we get something wrong.
Every publication makes mistakes. The difference between trustworthy publications and untrustworthy ones is how they handle the mistakes when they happen.
How to report an error. If you believe we have published something inaccurate, our contact page is the fastest way to reach us. Reports that include documentation (a citation, a screenshot, a source link) move faster because we can verify the claim quickly. Reports without documentation still get reviewed, but they take longer to resolve.
How we verify the error. Every reported error is checked against the original sources. If our writer or editor misread or mischaracterized a source, we acknowledge the error. If the source itself was wrong, we update the article to reflect more reliable sources. If we genuinely disagree with the reporter’s interpretation, we explain our reasoning rather than quietly making no change.
How we correct. Substantive errors are corrected directly in the article, with the change noted at the bottom of the article along with the date and a brief description of what changed. We do not silently revise. We do not delete the original text without acknowledgment. We do not pretend errors did not happen.
What we will never do. We will never remove a correction notice to make the article look cleaner. We will never refuse to correct an error because the correction is inconvenient to a brand we have a relationship with. We will never make corrections contingent on the reporter agreeing to keep quiet about the original error.
Editorial Questions
The standards, in practice.
The questions readers most often ask about how this site is written and reviewed.
How do you decide what topics to cover?
Topic priority is driven by reader demand and gaps in available information. We track which oils and brands readers search for most often, which questions come through our contact form, and which topics existing sites cover poorly. Topics that are heavily covered elsewhere with accurate information are lower priority for us than topics where readers can’t find a trustworthy answer.
Why do some articles only cite older research?
For many essential oils, the foundational research is older — sometimes decades old — and newer research has not added much. We cite the strongest available evidence, regardless of when it was published. When an article relies on older sources, that usually means newer research has not changed the picture significantly, and we say so explicitly when relevant.
If newer research contradicts older findings, we update the article and note the change.
How do you handle conflicting research?
By acknowledging the conflict openly. Some essential oil topics have genuine evidence on both sides — lavender for sleep, peppermint for headaches, oregano for various uses — and the honest answer is that the research is mixed. When this is the case, we say so directly rather than picking the conclusion that sells better.
Specifically, we present both lines of evidence, note which is stronger and why, and let readers make their own judgment about what to do with the uncertainty.
Do you ever publish opinion content?
Yes, but it’s always labeled clearly. Editorial commentary, brand criticism, and opinion pieces are marked as such in the article header. Factual reviews and educational content are kept separate from opinion content. A reader should never have to guess whether they’re reading a fact-based review or an opinion piece.
How do you handle paid promotion offers?
We decline them. We do not accept payment for product reviews, paid promotion of brands, paid placement in buying guides, or sponsored content presented as editorial. Brands occasionally offer free product samples; if we accept a sample for evaluation, the article notes that the sample was provided and explains why accepting it did not influence the review.
Display advertising sold through third-party networks (Google AdSense, etc.) is the only paid content on the site, and ad units are visually separated from editorial content.
What if a brand threatens legal action over a review?
We do not change reviews under legal pressure when the review is accurate and sourced. If a brand believes we have published something defamatory or inaccurate, we ask them to provide the specific claim they dispute and the evidence that contradicts it. If their evidence is stronger than ours, we correct the review. If their evidence does not contradict ours, we leave the review as published.
We have a documented process for handling legal complaints, and we consult with attorneys when needed. We do not allow legal threats from brands to override our editorial standards.
Can I write for Essential Oils Index?
Possibly. We accept writing samples and pitches through our contact page. Writers must demonstrate research competence, an ability to cite sources properly, and a willingness to work within our editorial standards. We pay per article rather than per word, and rates depend on topic complexity and writer experience.
We do not accept guest posts written for SEO link-building purposes. If a pitch reads as content marketing rather than genuine reader service, we decline.
Hold us to it
Standards are only useful if they’re enforced.
If you ever see something on this site that violates one of these standards, the fastest way to reach us is through our contact page. We treat reader corrections seriously — and we credit them publicly when they catch something we missed.
Questions?
Ask About Our Process
If you spot an error, want clarification on a review, or have a question about how we evaluate products, get in touch.