About EdibleRank's Editorial Team
How EdibleRank's editorial team reviews edibles, scores products, sources claims, and handles conflicts of interest. The standards we hold ourselves to, and how to reach us.
EdibleRank is an independent editorial publication covering cannabis edibles in the United States. Our work is built for one purpose: to be the most rigorous, citation-dense, and methodologically transparent source of information about edibles available to American consumers and patients.
Most edible reviews on the internet fall into one of three categories. Brand-sponsored content disguised as editorial. First-person product write-ups based on a single experience and a star rating. Generic aggregator pages that pull from other generic aggregator pages without ever touching a primary source. None of these meet the standard a reader would expect from a serious health, science, or consumer publication.
EdibleRank works differently.
How reviews are constructed
Every ranking, brand review, and dosing recommendation on this site is built from three inputs, weighted by relevance to the question being answered.
The first input is primary-source research. Peer-reviewed studies from PubMed and the NIH, federal legislative text, state regulator filings, court records, and brand-published certificates of analysis. We cite the source for every medical, pharmacological, or regulatory claim. Aggregator sources like Healthline, Leafly, and Verywell are not treated as primary and do not appear in our citation pool.
The second input is structured data aggregation. We track product specifications, COA results, retail pricing, dosing accuracy, cannabinoid ratios, and ingredient profiles across hundreds of state-licensed products. Where products appear in our rankings, the underlying data is verifiable: every claimed dose is backed by the lab certificate, every price is current at a verified state-licensed retailer, every cannabinoid ratio matches the COA on file.
The third input is consumer experience signal. We synthesize independent third-party reviews from credible sources, monitor structured discussion in patient and consumer communities (subreddits, condition-specific forums, advocacy organizations), and where the question warrants it, we field structured surveys to specific user populations. No anecdote becomes a claim. Patterns across many independent sources become claims.
The editorial team applies these three inputs to every page. No member of the team consumes cannabis as part of the review process. This is intentional. Personal experience is a poor instrument for the kind of scoring readers need, and a publication built on individual reactions cannot scale to medical-grade rigor. We score what the data shows. We say so explicitly when the data is thin or contested.
How products are scored
Every product is evaluated on five criteria, weighted equally:
- Dose accuracy versus label claims, verified against the COA
- Onset and duration profile, derived from formulation type and corroborated against published consumer experience data
- Cannabinoid and terpene profile relative to the stated use case
- Price per milligram, compared to the category average across state-licensed retailers
- Aggregate consumer experience signal across independent sources, where available
Scores are out of 10. A 7 is a good product. A 9 is exceptional. A 10 means the product sets a new category benchmark. Most products in any given category land between 5 and 7, and we say so rather than inflating the floor. Reviews that read as uniformly enthusiastic are reviews readers cannot trust, so we do not write them.
Conflict of interest policy
EdibleRank earns money from two sources: affiliate commissions on retail edible purchases initiated through links the reader chooses to click after the review is written, and $99/month featured listings in the dispensary directory. Featured dispensary listings are clearly labeled and do not affect editorial coverage of any dispensary. No brand has ever paid for placement, a review, or a ranking position on this site. If that ever changes, the relationship will be disclosed at the top of the affected page and visible in the URL.
The editorial team operates under a written conflict-of-interest policy. No member holds equity in or accepts compensation from any cannabis brand, dispensary, MSO, or hemp-derived product company. Brand inquiries, including PR pitches and sample offers, are routed to the contact email below and do not reach the editorial team during the review process.
Sourcing standard
Every medical or pharmacological claim on this site links to a primary source: PubMed, the NIH, peer-reviewed journals, state regulator filings, federal legislative text, or the brand's own published COA. If a claim cannot be sourced to a primary document, the claim does not appear on the page. This standard applies to rankings, brand reviews, dosing guides, science articles, and legal coverage equally.
The team
EdibleRank's editorial team is led by Patrick Baitman, Editor. The team includes contributors with backgrounds in regulatory research, pharmacology, and consumer data analysis. As the publication grows, additional contributors and expert advisors will be named on this page with their credentials and conflict-of-interest disclosures. Editorial responsibility for the standards described above sits with the Editor.
Contact
Editorial questions, factual corrections, brand inquiries, partnership requests, or anything else: hello@ediblerank.com.
We read every email. We do not always respond quickly. We do respond.