Editorial policy
How we source, review and correct what we publish.
We hold our published material to a standard borrowed from careful journalism and public-service publishing: name who is responsible, cite what you rely on, date what you publish, and correct errors openly.
- Version
- v1.0
- Published
- 2026-10-10
- Responsible reviewer
- Partnerships
Our editorial standard
We aim for the quality of a respected university publication or public-service broadcaster: careful sourcing, clear explanations, thoughtful visuals and dignified storytelling. We are not affiliated with any university, broadcaster or public agency, and we claim no such affiliation.
Written and owned
Every published item names a responsible author or reviewer. There is no anonymous content on this site — if we cannot name who stands behind a page, we do not publish it.
Sourced where it relies on facts
Where a page or document relies on external information — a regulation, a definition, a figure — we cite the source. Where a page describes only our own process, we say that instead of implying external authority.
Reviewed on a schedule
Each item carries a review schedule — monthly, quarterly or annual. When it is reviewed, the version and date change together, so a reader can always tell which revision they hold.
Corrected openly
When we get something wrong, we correct it and update the date. We do not quietly edit a page and hope nobody noticed — a silent correction is how a reader loses the ability to trust the date on anything else.
What we do not publish
- No fabricated experts or advisers. We do not list advisory board members, clinical advisers or expert contributors we do not have.
- No invented results. We do not publish placement counts, success rates, savings or outcome statistics that we cannot evidence.
- No testimonials we have not received. Nothing on this site is presented as a resident, agency or partner quote unless it is one, given with permission.
- No testimonials or case studies without permission. If we ever write about a specific resident's or partner's experience, we will have documented permission first.
- No unsupported endorsements. We do not display hospital logos, government seals, partner names or accreditation marks without verified authorisation.
How to raise a correction
If something on this site is inaccurate, unclear or out of date, tell us. You do not need to be an expert or a partner — a reader who spots a problem is doing us a favour.
- 1.Send the page or document name, and quote the part that is wrong. A link or the exact wording is the most useful thing you can give us.
- 2.If you can, tell us what the correct position is and how you know. A source helps, but it is not required to raise something.
- 3.We review it, decide whether a correction is needed, and make it — updating the version and date so readers can see what changed.
- 4.We reply to tell you what we did, including when the answer is that we think the original was right. That is a real outcome and you will get the reasoning.
Our commitment on corrections
We will not remove a page to make a correction awkward, and we will not silently rewrite history. Where a correction materially changes what a reader would have understood, the new version says so.
Monitoring and measurement
We measure non-identifying activity: downloads, business inquiries, meetings booked and substantive partnership conversations. We do not place sensitive referral information into analytics, advertising or tracking pixels, and protected referral pages are excluded from marketing tracking entirely.
Related pages
Spotted something wrong?
Tell us the page and the wording. We will look at it, make the correction if it is warranted, and tell you what we did.