Editorial Methodology

Natugreens follows one principle that guides all of its work: every botanical profile is produced and reviewed through a collective, documented process, not under one person’s byline. For that reason, the site does not publish individual names, photos, biographies, or job titles. This is a stated editorial choice. We would rather have trust in our content rest on described stages, cited sources, and explicit criteria that any reader can check independently than on the authority attached to a name. This page explains how the profiles published in the portal’s 12 languages are produced, reviewed, and corrected.

Stages in Producing Each Profile

Gathering Primary Sources

Every profile begins with gathering primary sources on the species, giving priority to scientific articles, monographs, and botanical works that can be accessed and verified. The search covers databases such as Biodiversity Heritage Library, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, among others, and every source actually used appears in the profile’s references section, with a link or DOI whenever one exists.

Verifying the Scientific Name

Before any writing begins, the species’ accepted name, its synonyms, and its botanical family are checked against international taxonomic databases such as POWO (Plants of the World Online), maintained by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and World Flora Online. This step prevents information about one plant from being attributed to another because of outdated names or old classifications that still circulate in the literature.

Common Names in Each Language

Common names are checked against sources published in the language itself, such as regional floras, botanical dictionaries, and local ethnobotanical literature. We never translate the Portuguese name literally, because a common name is only useful when it matches what speakers of that language actually say, and a word-for-word translation may point to a different plant or to none at all.

Writing the Profile

Once the sources and taxonomy are settled, the profile is written in accessible language without sacrificing accuracy. Every relevant statement about use, composition, or effect must be anchored in one of the listed references, and the text draws a clear line between what comes from scientific studies and what comes from traditional use.

Safety Review

A dedicated stage is devoted to safety. It covers the known toxicity of the plant and its parts, possible interactions with medications, and the groups that call for special caution, such as breastfeeding women, children, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, and pregnant women. When the literature is sparse on any of these points, the profile says so explicitly, rather than letting silence pass for an absence of risk.

Linguistic Review in Each Language

Each version of the profile is reviewed in the language in which it will be published, with attention to the botanical and pharmacological terminology used in that language, to the naturalness of the prose, and to keeping every safety warning in the source text fully intact.

Publication and Periodic Review

Once approved at every stage, the profile is published with the date of its most recent review. Profiles are reviewed again periodically to incorporate taxonomic changes, relevant new studies, and corrections pointed out by readers.

Safety Criteria

No use of a plant is presented on Natugreens as a treatment for any disease. The profiles describe what the literature records and do not tell readers what to do about their own health, a decision that belongs to a qualified professional who knows their individual case.

Sensitive information is clearly flagged for what it is. When an effect is still being investigated, it appears as “under study” or “investigated in preliminary research,” and when a use comes from folk practice or traditional medicine, it appears as “traditional use” or “folk use.” These labels exist so that readers never mistake a use documented by tradition for a result demonstrated in research.

Toxicity warnings take priority over any other information in the profile. If a plant is toxic, in whole or in any of its parts, that warning is displayed prominently and is never softened to make the text more appealing.

How We Assess Sources

Not every source carries the same weight, and the profile makes this visible to the reader. Put simply, this is the order of confidence we follow, from the strongest evidence to the weakest:

• Systematic reviews, which gather and compare many studies on the same question, and official monographs published by health authorities.
• Individual clinical trials, conducted in people but still awaiting confirmation by other studies.
• Preclinical studies, carried out in the laboratory on cells or animals, which point to avenues for research but do not allow conclusions about what happens in the human body.
• Ethnobotanical and traditional records, which document how different peoples use the plant and have great cultural and historical value, without constituting proof of efficacy.

All of these levels can appear in the same profile, because each one answers a different question. What we do not do is mix them without labeling them: readers always know whether they are looking at a broad review, a laboratory study, or an account of traditional use.

The Role of Digital Tools

Digital tools, including artificial intelligence, are used to support the writing and translation of the profiles, following the stages and criteria described on this page. Responsibility for what is published rests entirely with Natugreens.

Corrections and Updates

If you find an error in any profile, whether it involves botanical information, an incorrect reference, an unsuitable common name, or a translation problem, you can report it through the site’s Contact page, which also sets out our response times. Every report is reviewed and, when it is warranted, the correction is made to the profile and the revision date shown at the top of the page is updated, so that readers know when the content was last checked.

What This Methodology Does Not Claim

To avoid any ambiguity, we also set out the limits of this process. Natugreens does not attribute the review of its profiles to physicians, pharmacists, or other health professionals, and no profile should be read as professional advice. Nor does the site hold certification from any outside body. Natugreens has no formal agreement with the institutions whose databases it consults, such as Kew or World Flora Online, which are cited solely as public data sources. What we offer is a documented process with traceable sources, built to serve as a reference work, which does not replace the guidance of a health professional.

Last revised: 2026-10-31