Editorial policy: How we research and review content
By Dr. Maya Thornton, PhD
Behavioral Psychology Researcher | Evidence Standards Lead
Published January 1, 2026 | 8 min read
How is Moon manifest content reviewed?
Every piece of Moon Manifest content follows a structured review process. We verify claims against peer-reviewed research from journals including Psychological Bulletin and Management Science. Our specialist writers create content within their expertise areas, and separate reviewers check accuracy before publication. We maintain a citations library with 15+ verified studies including DOI links for transparency.
Key points (TLDR)
- 1.Research-backed claims: All statistics cite peer-reviewed studies with DOI links - we use verified research, not popularized myths
- 2.Specialist writers + reviewers: Five domain experts create content; each has a designated reviewer for accuracy checks
- 3.Clear distinction: We separate evidence-based behavioral science from astrological frameworks - we never claim astrology is scientifically proven
Research shows that trust in online content correlates directly with transparency about sources and methodology. At Moon Manifest, we believe you deserve to understand exactly how we research, verify, and maintain the content you read. This page explains our editorial standards in plain language.
The short version: we take evidence seriously, even when discussing topics that some dismiss as unscientific. Studies on goal achievement, habit formation, and psychological timing provide the foundation for our recommendations - while astrology provides a personalization framework, not a scientific claim.
Our research-based approach
Studies demonstrate that readers increasingly evaluate content based on verifiable sources. We respond to this by grounding every major claim in peer-reviewed research, maintaining a verified citations library that currently includes 15+ studies published between 2010 and 2025.
What we mean by "research-based"
- -Primary sources: We cite original studies, not summaries of summaries. When we reference the "66 days to form a habit" finding, we link directly to Lally et al. (2010) in the European Journal of Social Psychology.
- -Effect sizes, not just p-values: We report effect sizes (like d=0.65 for implementation intentions) because they tell you how meaningful a finding is, not just whether it reached statistical significance.
- -Sample sizes disclosed: When we cite Matthews (2015) on written goals, we note the study included 267 participants. Context matters.
- -Limitations acknowledged: Research has boundaries. We note when studies are conference presentations rather than peer-reviewed journal articles, or when findings apply to specific populations.
This approach aligns with what researchers call E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) - the framework search engines and readers use to evaluate content quality. We believe manifestation content deserves the same rigor applied to health or financial information.
How we verify claims
The manifestation space is filled with popularized statistics that are either inflated, misquoted, or entirely unverifiable. Studies show this erodes trust - research on misinformation indicates that once readers encounter one false claim, they become skeptical of accurate information as well. We address this through systematic verification.
Our verification process
Step 1: Source Identification
We trace claims to their original publication. If a statistic like "92% of people fail at goals" cannot be traced to a specific study, we do not use it.
Step 2: Publication Verification
We verify the publication exists, check the DOI (Digital Object Identifier), and confirm the claim accurately represents the study findings.
Step 3: Context Check
We note sample sizes, study populations, and limitations. A study on college students may not generalize to all adults; a conference presentation carries different weight than a peer-reviewed journal article.
Step 4: Regular Updates
Research evolves. We refresh our citations quarterly, replacing older studies with more recent replications when available and updating findings if new meta-analyses emerge.
Our research methodology page provides additional detail on how we evaluate study quality and integrate findings into content.
Experience our research-backed approach
See how evidence-based timing and personalization work together in your free moon reading.
Get Your Free Moon ReadingOur author expertise
Research on content credibility consistently identifies author expertise as a key trust factor. Rather than having generalist writers cover all topics, we assign content to specialists who bring domain knowledge and relevant experience.
Specialist writers
- Dr. Maya Thornton - Research & Psychology (that's me)
- Stella Hartwell - Manifestation & Lunar Timing
- Celeste Morrow - Astrology & Birth Charts
- Jenna Calloway - Lifestyle & Daily Practice
- Arden Blake - Rituals & Seasonal Timing
Review structure
- Each writer has a designated reviewer
- Reviewers check accuracy and voice consistency
- Cross-domain content gets multiple reviews
- Research claims require citation verification
- Final editorial approval before publication
Visit our authors page to learn more about each writer's background, expertise, and the content categories they specialize in.
How we update content
Research findings evolve, and content accuracy degrades over time without maintenance. Studies on website trustworthiness show that dated content reduces credibility even when the core information remains accurate. We address this through systematic updates.
Our update schedule
- -Quarterly citation refresh: We search academic databases for new studies on goal-setting, habit formation, personalization, and digital coaching.
- -Annual content audit: Every major page receives a comprehensive review including accuracy, relevance, and voice consistency.
- -Real-time corrections: When readers identify errors or we discover outdated information, we update immediately and note the revision date.
- -Publication dates displayed: Every article shows publication and last-modified dates so you can assess currency.
What we don't claim: Astrology vs. astronomy
Research on scientific literacy shows that conflating evidence-based findings with unverifiable claims undermines trust in both. We maintain clear boundaries between what behavioral science demonstrates and what astrology offers as a framework.
What research supports
- Written goals increase achievement (Matthews, 2015)
- Temporal landmarks boost goal initiation by 33-47% (Milkman et al., 2014)
- "If-then" planning shows d=0.65 effect (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006)
- Personalization improves outcomes by 21-43% (Li et al., 2024)
- Habits require ~66 days to form (Lally et al., 2010)
What we present as framework
- Moon phases as temporal landmarks (psychological, not mystical)
- Birth chart as personalization tool (self-understanding framework)
- Moon signs as emotional pattern descriptions
- Lunar timing as consistent ritual scheduling
- Astrological archetypes as self-reflection prompts
We do not claim that celestial bodies directly influence human behavior through gravitational or electromagnetic forces. Instead, we present astrology as what behavioral science would call a "personalization framework" - a system for categorizing preferences, timing practices, and creating consistency. The research on personalization effects (d=0.21-0.43) applies regardless of which framework generates that personalization.
For a deeper exploration of the evidence behind our approach, see ourScience of Manifestation page.
Ready to see the evidence in action?
Your free moon reading applies research-backed personalization to your unique profile.
Start Your Free ReadingQuestions about our standards?
Transparency requires accessibility. If you have questions about our research methodology, find an error in our content, or want to suggest improvements, we want to hear from you.
Contact options
- -Error reports: If you find a factual error or broken citation, contact us through our contact page. We respond within 48 hours and correct errors immediately.
- -Research suggestions: Know of a study we should cite? We welcome recommendations for peer-reviewed research relevant to our topics.
- -General feedback: Comments on our editorial approach? Let us know what builds trust for you.
Sources & references
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006)
Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Effects and Processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.
DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Meta-analysis of 94 studies showing d=0.65 effect for "if-then" planning
Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010)
How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998-1009.
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.674
Finding: 66 days average for habit automaticity
Li, H., Bai, K., Copara, M., Schwartz, H., & Daume III, H. (2024)
Enhancing Behavior Change Support Through Personalization: A Study of Tailored Motivational Messages. Journal of Behavioral Data Science.
DOI: 10.1145/3613904.3642877
Finding: d=0.21 effect size for personalized vs. standardized interventions
Matthews, G. (2015)
Goals Research Summary. Dominican University of California.
Source: scholar.dominican.edu/psychology-faculty-conference-presentations/3/
Finding: 70%+ achievement with written goals and accountability vs. 35% without
Milkman, K. L., Minson, J. A., & Volpp, K. G. M. (2014)
The Fresh Start Effect: Temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Management Science, 60(10), 2563-2582.
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1901
Finding: 33-47% increase in goal-directed behavior at temporal landmarks
About dr. maya thornton
Dr. Maya Thornton holds a PhD in behavioral psychology with specialization in goal achievement, habit formation, and evidence-based wellness practices. Her research bridges academic psychology and practical application, ensuring Moon Manifest content meets rigorous evidence standards while remaining accessible to readers. She leads our editorial standards and citation verification process.