Who produces our content
gemcubes.com focuses on plain-language gemstone and mineral education for beginner enthusiasts, collectors and jewelry shoppers. Our editorial scope includes crystal shapes, identification basics, buying considerations and material-specific care.
The publisher’s identity, contributor names and editorial roles are not publicly specified. We cannot provide a verified team roster or confirm individual qualifications here. Readers should not assume that an article reflects hands-on testing, a gemologist’s assessment or professional laboratory review unless that involvement is explicitly documented.
Editorial responsibilities
Our editorial aim is to make gemstone information understandable without making it more certain than the evidence allows. Articles should define unfamiliar terms, distinguish mineral species from varieties, and explain the difference between natural crystal growth, cut facets and carved shapes. A cube-shaped object alone does not establish its mineral identity.
Buying guidance should distinguish identification, geographic-origin opinions, quality grading and monetary appraisal. Claims about treatments, rarity, ethical sourcing or certification need supporting evidence. Cultural traditions and editorial interpretation should be clearly separated from established scientific findings.
Our content is general education, not individual identification, appraisal or medical advice. Photographs and scratch tests are not conclusive identification methods. For consequential purchases or uncertain specimens, seek a qualified gemologist or laboratory. Care guidance should account for the material and any treatments; when either is uncertain, seek professional advice rather than trying universal cleaning methods. Destructive home tests, ingestion, crystal-water recipes and procedures involving hazardous dust or chemicals fall outside our editorial scope.
Sources and review
Our sourcing standard prioritizes gemological laboratory documentation, museum collections and peer-reviewed mineralogical research. Factual claims should be traceable to relevant sources, and photographs or diagrams should have appropriate attribution and checked permissions. Illustrative images should not be presented as proof of a specimen’s identity.
Review should consider whether a source supports the precise claim being made, including the limits of testing and laboratory reports. Information about treatment detection, report capabilities and marketplace practices should be rechecked before publication when it may have changed. These are editorial standards we aim to apply, not a claim that every article has received independent expert review. A cited laboratory or museum should not be understood as endorsing or partnering with gemcubes.com.
Corrections
Our correction policy is to assess reported errors against supporting evidence and make material corrections visible, explaining what changed rather than silently replacing a consequential claim. Relevant reports should identify the article, the disputed passage and a reliable source supporting the correction.
A verified public correction contact is not specified here, so we cannot direct readers to a confirmed reporting route or promise a response time. Once a verified channel is established, it should be clearly identified for correction reports. Until a disputed identification or care claim is resolved, do not rely on it for a significant purchase or a potentially damaging treatment.