Our editorial standards.

This page is a starter policy. Before publication, adapt it to the site's real editorial process and only retain commitments the team can meet.

Research and sourcing

We aim to prioritise primary sources, official datasets, research papers, technical documentation, and direct statements from relevant organisations. Secondary reporting can provide context, but important claims should be checked against their original evidence where practical.

Accuracy and uncertainty

We distinguish reported facts, estimates, analysis, and opinion. When evidence is incomplete or contested, we explain the uncertainty instead of presenting a single interpretation as settled fact. Dates, units, geography, and the period covered by a statistic should be made clear.

Writing and review

Every article should answer a useful reader question, add meaningful context, and be edited for clarity and accuracy. Author names and qualifications must be real. Any specialist review process should be described accurately on the relevant page.

AI and automation

Tools may assist with research organisation, drafting, or editing, but they do not replace verification, editorial judgement, or responsibility for published claims. Editors should independently check factual statements, citations, calculations, and any generated material before publication. Do not imply human expert review unless it occurred.

Corrections and updates

When we confirm a material error, we correct it and update the article where appropriate. Significant updates should be reflected with an updated date and an explanation when that context matters to readers. See our sources and corrections page.

Independence and conflicts

Disclose relevant commercial relationships, sponsorship, affiliate links, and conflicts of interest. Advertising does not buy favourable editorial coverage. Any sponsorship rules should be tailored to the actual business before launch.