Angraecum.org publishes independent reference content to help readers understand Angraecum orchids, their cultivation, identification, habitats, and botanical research. Our editorial priorities are accuracy, clear explanations, traceable sources, and honest treatment of uncertainty. This policy sets the standards for material prepared for publication and for subsequent updates.
We select topics according to their usefulness to readers and their relevance to our specialist scope. Species profiles, practical guides, comparisons, and research explainers should answer a clear question. Titles and introductions must represent the content accurately. Claims about rarity, difficulty, fragrance, flowering, or suitability require evidence and appropriate context.
Source selection depends on the claim being made. We give priority to:
- Original research, taxonomic publications, regional floras, and specialist monographs for botanical findings.
- Established botanical databases for names, synonyms, distribution, and links to supporting literature.
- Recognized orchid organizations and well-documented specialist accounts for cultivation guidance.
- Identifiable grower observations when their conditions, limitations, and relevance can be explained.
We assess a source’s authorship, methods, publication context, currency, and relevance. Repetition across websites does not establish independent confirmation when those websites rely on the same underlying account. References should allow readers to locate the material consulted. Quotations must preserve meaning, and a citation must support the statement attached to it.
For taxonomic treatment, we use Kew’s Plants of the World Online as a principal reference while identifying relevant disagreements or later proposals. POWO links information to accepted names through its taxonomic backbone. The International Plant Names Index provides nomenclatural and bibliographic records of published plant names. We use these resources according to their different purposes and consult original publications when the question requires them. Kew Science
Before publication, our standards require checks of important names, numbers, units, dates, quotations, image captions, and references. Distribution, habitat, and cultivation information must remain distinguishable. Missing information should be acknowledged. Tables and comparison tools must represent the evidence consistently with the accompanying text, including qualifications that materially affect interpretation.
Cultivation advice must account for species and growing conditions. Angraecum includes plants with varied ecological and temperature requirements. Recommendations should explain their scope and, where relevant, the growing medium, light, watering, airflow, and seasonal context. Personal success with one plant is presented as an observation whose wider applicability requires assessment. We avoid unsupported promises of growth, recovery, or flowering. aos.org
Research coverage should distinguish direct observations, experimental findings, interpretations, and hypotheses. Historical accounts need sources appropriate to the period and question. When explaining pollination or a proposed identification, we make the strength of the evidence clear. Disagreement is described in proportion to its scientific relevance and support.
Images must serve an accurate explanatory purpose. Our standards require an appropriate permission or license, clear attribution, and captions that reflect the confidence of the identification. Editing must preserve features relevant to the subject being discussed. Illustrations and reconstructions should be labeled. AI-generated imagery must be identified and cannot serve as evidence of a species’ appearance or diagnostic features.
If AI assists with outlining, drafting, translation, or data organization, a responsible human editor must verify the published result. Names, measurements, claims, and references require independent checking against suitable sources. AI output is not a source. We do not publish invented citations, observations, quotations, or credentials. Material use of AI in producing substantive content or images should be disclosed where readers can understand its role.
Authorship and review information should accurately describe who contributed and what they did. Specialist review is credited only when it has occurred, with its scope stated where necessary. We do not imply that an article received scientific peer review or institutional approval without evidence. Contributors are expected to identify relevant financial or professional interests.
Editorial decisions must remain independent of advertising, affiliate arrangements, gifts, or commercial relationships. Such relationships should be disclosed near the relevant content. Commercial partners cannot purchase favorable factual treatment or prevent a justified correction. Product references and comparisons must explain their selection criteria and the basis for any evaluation.
We review content when new evidence, source changes, or reader reports indicate a need. Substantive revisions should carry an accurate update date and an explanation where the change affects interpretation. Factual errors are handled under our Corrections Policy. Routine formatting edits should not imply that the underlying research has been comprehensively reviewed.
Contributions and source suggestions are assessed against these standards. Publication depends on relevance, evidence, permissions, and editorial judgment. We also consider whether publishing sensitive locality information could expose wild plants to harm. Readers can raise questions, suggest sources, or report concerns through our Contact page, ideally with the affected URL and supporting details.