Editorial policy

Useful work, clear evidence

Brainaris articles should answer a real reader question and contribute an explanation, example, comparison or practical method. Recommendations should connect the evidence to a decision and identify the circumstances that could change the advice.

Facts, quotations and consequential claims are checked before publication. Primary sources are preferred where available, with links placed close to the claims they support. Company-reported results and other parties’ accounts are attributed to their sources.

A source can establish that a company reported a result without independently proving that result or what caused it. Coverage should make that distinction clear when it affects the conclusion.

Research and testing

Reading documentation, reviewing a portfolio and using a product establish different things. Coverage must describe the work actually performed. Public research must not be presented as a customer engagement, interview or firsthand test.

When testing supports a conclusion, the article should explain the relevant conditions, version and scope. Illustrative examples and proposed exercises are identified as such. Estimates should make their assumptions clear.

An unanswered question or missing public detail is a limitation of the available evidence. It is not, by itself, evidence that a product or provider performs poorly.

Authorship and comparisons

The byline identifies the writer responsible for the article. Author profiles describe areas of coverage. Quotations, outside contributions and reported experiences remain attributed to the people or organizations they concern.

Comparisons should explain their selection and assessment criteria. A recommendation should state who an option suits and why, while keeping prices, capabilities and results within the scope the evidence supports.

Material differences in scope, billing, product versions or access conditions should be explained where they affect a comparison. An article should not imply that every option received the same kind of assessment when the work differed.

Relevant relationships and editorial judgment

A personal, professional or financial relationship relevant to an article must be disclosed where readers encounter the coverage. The disclosure should explain the relationship sufficiently for readers to assess its significance.

A company pitch, supplied material or opportunity to clarify facts does not determine an article’s conclusions. Sources and reported claims remain subject to the same standards of evidence and attribution.

Corrections and updates

Send correction requests through the Contact page, with the article URL, the disputed information and any supporting evidence. Requests should be assessed against the sources and the substance of the claim.

Material corrections should include a note explaining what changed. Update dates should reflect meaningful editorial changes. Minor spelling or formatting fixes do not require a new publication date.

An update should preserve the distinction between information available when an article was published and developments added later.