Every factual claim has a source
If a number, comparison, or statement of cause-and-effect appears in a lesson, it has an inline citation pill. If we can't find a source, the claim gets rewritten or dropped — no claims without sources ship.
The Research Integrity System
Every claim, cited.
Most microgreen content online is free, fast, and roughly correct — with no way to check the roughly. Our position is simpler: every factual statement ties to a source, every source has a visible quality tier, and every page shows when it was last reviewed.
Source quality is visible
Four tiers: Gold (peer-reviewed), Silver (extension / government), Bronze (industry / vetted practitioner), Gray (clearly-labeled anecdote). You always know how confident to be.
Reviewed every 12 months
Every module and lesson has a `last_reviewed_at` date. Pages older than a year surface a visible banner flagging the review is due. The review is an actual editorial check, not a timestamp refresh.
Flag anything
Every page has a 'Flag for review' button. Flags route to our editorial queue. Corrections we accept are credited and the citation library is updated — one edit, propagates everywhere.
The four source tiers
GoldPeer-reviewed
- ·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- ·Trends in Food Science & Technology
- ·Food Chemistry
- ·Psychological Science (for pedagogy claims)
SilverExtension / Government
- ·USDA Agricultural Research Service
- ·Cornell CEA publications
- ·Rodale Institute
- ·FDA Produce Safety Rule
BronzeIndustry / vetted practitioner
- ·True Leaf Market technical specs
- ·Johnny's Selected Seeds growing guides
- ·Commercial grower case studies
- ·On The Grow photo references
GrayAnecdote (labeled)
- ·Community forum wisdom
- ·Individual grower experiments
- ·Oral tradition from market growers
What we do on contested topics
Some microgreen claims are scientifically settled (vitamin concentration ranges, germination time curves, HACCP basics). Others are actively debated (optimal light spectra for anthocyanin development, organic vs synthetic nutrient efficacy). For debated topics we:
- 1.Name the disagreement explicitly.
- 2.Show the mainstream scientific position and the practitioner position side by side.
- 3.Label the confidence level (scientific consensus, emerging research, contested, anecdotal) on the page header.
- 4.Say “we don't know yet” when that's the honest answer.
Propose a source
Spotted a claim that's missing a citation? Found a better source? Disagree with a tier assignment? The editorial queue is open to everyone — both registered users (via the Flag button) and external researchers (via the contact form).
Send a correction