Editorial Standards & Review Process
How we select, evaluate, and present cannabis science — our evidence grading methodology, medical review process, and commitment to editorial independence.
Core Editorial Principles
These four principles govern every editorial decision on MarijuanaResearch.com.
Editorial Independence
MarijuanaResearch.com editorial content is produced independently of our commercial relationships. Supporters and industry directory listings have no influence over study selection, evidence grading, or editorial conclusions. Our Supporters page includes a prominent editorial independence notice.
No Therapeutic Advice
This platform presents research summaries for educational purposes. Nothing on this site constitutes medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Readers should consult a qualified healthcare provider before making any medical decisions.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
All medical reviewers and contributors disclose financial relationships with cannabis industry companies, research funders, or advocacy organizations. Disclosed conflicts are noted on relevant content pages.
Source Transparency
Every factual claim links to its primary source via DOI or direct URL. We do not cite secondary sources when primary data is available. Where studies conflict, we present the range of evidence rather than selecting a single result.
Evidence Grading Framework
Every study, topic summary, and Q&A response on this site is assigned one of three evidence levels. Here is exactly what each level means.
Criteria
- Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with consistent results
- Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of RCT data
- FDA approval or equivalent regulatory body approval
- Replicated findings across independent research groups
- Adequate sample sizes (typically n > 100 per arm)
Examples on This Site
CBD for Dravet syndrome (Epidiolex), THC for chemotherapy-induced nausea (dronabinol), nabiximols for MS spasticity.
Criteria
- At least one well-designed RCT with positive results
- Multiple observational studies or open-label trials
- Consistent preclinical evidence supporting the mechanism
- Results not yet replicated across multiple independent groups
- Ongoing Phase II or Phase III clinical trials
Examples on This Site
CBD for anxiety disorders, CBG for inflammatory bowel disease, terpene entourage effects.
Criteria
- Primarily preclinical (cell culture or animal) data only
- Single small pilot studies without replication
- Case reports or anecdotal evidence
- Conflicting results across available studies
- Mechanistic plausibility without clinical confirmation
Examples on This Site
Cannabis anti-tumor effects in humans, CBN as a standalone sleep aid, most terpene-specific therapeutic claims.
Our Review Process
Every piece of content on MarijuanaResearch.com goes through a six-step process before publication.
Source Selection
We index peer-reviewed studies from PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and major journals including JAMA, The Lancet, Nature, NEJM, and specialty publications. We do not index preprints, press releases, or industry-funded studies without independent replication.
Evidence Grading
Each study and topic summary is graded using our three-tier evidence framework (Well-Studied, Emerging, Limited) based on study design, sample size, replication, and regulatory status. Grading is applied independently by two reviewers; disagreements are resolved by a third.
Medical Review
Topic hub summaries, compound profiles, and Q&A responses are reviewed by at least one MD or PhD with relevant specialty expertise before publication. Reviewers disclose any conflicts of interest. Clinical guidance is reviewed by a licensed physician.
Fact-Checking
All factual claims are linked to primary sources via DOI. Statistics, dosing figures, and regulatory status are verified against the original publication and cross-referenced with FDA, EMA, and Health Canada databases.
Regular Updates
Topic pages and compound profiles are reviewed for accuracy every six months or when significant new research is published. The "Last Updated" date on each page reflects the most recent substantive review. Outdated content is flagged and prioritized for revision.
Corrections Policy
Factual errors are corrected promptly with a visible correction notice indicating what was changed and when. We do not silently edit published content. Readers can report potential errors via our contact page.
Scope & Limitations
What We Cover
- Peer-reviewed clinical and preclinical research
- FDA, EMA, and Health Canada regulatory decisions
- Pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and drug interactions
- Evidence-graded therapeutic applications
- Open research questions and knowledge gaps
- Researcher profiles with verified credentials
What We Don't Cover
- Medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations
- Product reviews or brand endorsements
- Legal advice on cannabis regulations
- Unverified anecdotal reports or testimonials
- Preprints or non-peer-reviewed research (without clear labeling)
- Dosing recommendations for individual patients
Questions About Our Standards?
If you believe a factual error exists on this site, or have questions about our editorial process, we want to hear from you.