Editorial Standards

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Eleanor B., Lead Editor

This is the complete editorial code that governs Explore Your Garden. It is not aspirational. It is operational: every article we publish is checked against this code before going live, and every violation is corrected publicly. The code draws on principles from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, adapted for the specific demands of gardening writing where accuracy can affect plant survival and, in the case of plant identification, reader safety.

1. Editorial independence

Explore Your Garden is owned and operated by its founder, with no external shareholders, no holding company, and no parent media group. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team without input from advertisers, affiliate partners, or commercial relationships. No advertiser or commercial partner has the right to review, approve, or alter editorial content prior to publication.

If a commercial partner attempts to influence editorial coverage, we decline the relationship and document the attempt internally. If the attempt rises to the level of public interest, we may publish an account of it, with the partner identified.

2. Accuracy

Every factual claim in our articles is sourced and verifiable. When we cite our own test garden experience, we identify the test plot. When we cite external information, we link to a primary source whenever possible. When a claim is contested or uncertain, we say so explicitly.

Specific commitments for gardening accuracy:

• Climate-dependent advice (sowing dates, hardiness, overwintering) is always tagged with the climate it was developed for.
• Cultivar-specific claims are tied to the cultivar by name; “tomatoes” and “Sungold tomatoes” are not interchangeable.
• Plant identification information is corroborated against multiple authoritative sources before publication.
• Foraging guidance never relies on a single source; high-risk identifications (lookalikes for toxic species) are flagged prominently.

If we publish something inaccurate, we correct it according to our Corrections Policy.

3. Transparency about test conditions

Gardening advice is only as transferable as its test conditions are clear. Every article that depends on conditions identifies them: zone, climate, soil type, exposure, season. Where advice is generalized across conditions, we say what we have actually tested and where, and we flag where readers in different conditions should adjust.

This is a more demanding standard than most gardening publications maintain. We hold to it because vague advice on plants generally does not work in any specific garden, and gardening readers deserve specifics.

4. Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest exists whenever a writer or editor has a relationship with a person or entity that could reasonably be expected to influence judgment about that person or entity. Conflicts are not necessarily disqualifying; they are necessarily disclosable.

Specific situations we treat as conflicts requiring disclosure:

• A product was provided to us free by the manufacturer for review.
• A writer or editor has been paid by, contracted with, or provided unpaid services to the brand being covered.
• A writer or editor has a personal relationship with a person being covered.
• Explore Your Garden has an active commercial relationship (advertising, sponsorship) with the entity being covered.
• A writer or editor holds an investment, equity, or other financial interest that would benefit from the coverage.
• A writer is reviewing a product they had previously favorably mentioned in a context where they were paid.

Disclosures appear in a clearly marked block at the top of the article, in plain language, not buried in footnotes.

5. Sourcing and attribution

All quotations, paraphrases, and factual claims drawn from external sources are attributed. When we paraphrase someone, we link to or cite the original. When we quote, we use direct quotation marks and link to the original. We do not stitch passages from multiple sources together without identifying each.

For a complete account of our sourcing practice, see our Sources & Citations Policy.

6. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a firing-level offense. We have not had a case in our history. If we ever do, the offending writer is removed from the team, the article is retracted with a public notice, and the original source is contacted with an apology.

7. Anonymous sources

We grant anonymity sparingly and only when the information genuinely cannot be obtained otherwise and the public interest in publishing it outweighs the loss of accountability. The standard situations — investigative reporting on bad practices in horticulture supply chains, for example — are rare on a gardening site, but the principle applies if we encounter them.

8. Privacy

Public figures — nursery owners, plant breeders, garden journalists, public-figure celebrity gardeners — are subject to public commentary on their public work. Their private lives are off-limits unless the investigation directly serves a clear public interest. We do not publish home addresses, family relationships, or private medical information.

For our handling of reader privacy, see our Privacy Policy.

9. Plant safety and reader risk

Some gardening content carries a real reader-safety dimension — toxicity to humans and pets, foraging identifications, allergic reactions, soil contamination risks. Articles touching these topics are held to additional standards:

• Identification claims for foraging are corroborated by multiple authoritative botanical sources.
• High-risk lookalikes are flagged prominently, not relegated to footnotes.
• Toxicity information cites authoritative databases (ASPCA, RHS toxicity database, peer-reviewed sources).
• Articles that could be acted on with serious consequences include explicit safety framing at the top.

The framework is described on the Plant Safety & Hazards page.

10. Errors and corrections

When we discover an error in published work, we correct it. The correction is logged at the bottom of the article with the date and a description of what changed. We do not silently revise. The full process is described in the Corrections Policy.

11. Right of reply

Persons or organizations significantly criticized in a published article have the right to respond, on the same article, in a clearly identified note. Right-of-reply submissions are reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness; we do not publish abusive or off-topic responses, but we do publish substantive disagreements even when we continue to disagree.

12. Embargoes

When a brand, plant breeder, or publisher provides advance information under embargo, we honor the embargo if we agreed to it. We do not retroactively claim embargo cover on information obtained independently.

13. Editorial governance

The lead editor (Eleanor B.) is responsible for application of these standards across the publication. Disputes between team members about the application of a standard are resolved by the lead editor. Disputes involving the lead editor’s own conduct are resolved by consensus of the remaining editorial team members.

Readers who believe these standards have been violated in a specific article should email info [at] exploreyourgarden [punto] site with the subject line Editorial standards complaint. Complaints are reviewed within seven business days, and a public response is issued whenever a violation is confirmed.

14. Review and revision

This document is reviewed at least once every twelve months and revised as our understanding evolves. The revision history is maintained internally; significant changes are summarized in a public changelog appended to this page.

Related pages: Our Mission · How We Work · Corrections Policy · Sources & Citations · How We Test