Editorial Policy

Our editorial standards

We write for readers ranging from complete beginners to coffee specialists and UK workplace decision makers. Clear explanations come first, with technical detail where it helps readers understand a subject or make a decision.

Our standards require writers to:

• Separate facts from opinions and explain the reasons behind recommendations.
• Define unfamiliar terms and state the assumptions behind calculations.
• Explain uncertainty and genuine disagreement rather than imply certainty.
• Avoid invented quotations, sources, credentials, testing or first-hand experience.
• Describe both the advantages and limitations of equipment and methods.

Research-based guidance must not be presented as hands-on testing. Any testing claim must identify what was tested and how.

Sources and fact checking

We prioritise sources suited to the claim: original research and recognised scientific bodies for science, official authorities for regulations, and manufacturers’ published documents for claimed specifications. Manufacturer material alone is not sufficient evidence of independent performance or reliability.

Health and science coverage must identify whether evidence comes from a controlled trial, an observational study, a review or expert guidance. An association must not be presented as proof of cause. Environmental claims must be specific, qualified and supported rather than repeat broad promotional language.

Each piece must have an internal evidence log recording substantive factual claims, their sources, document dates or editions, and checking dates. The log also records uncertainties and the action needed to resolve them. Unresolved factual claims must be removed, qualified accurately or resolved before publication.

Published source lists must contain material actually consulted. A source must support the claim being made, not merely discuss the same topic.

Human responsibility and specialist approval

Human editors remain responsible for publication, including material prepared with AI assistance.

Editorial approval: [CHECK: site owner to supply the responsible editor’s name and role.]

Health and scientific approval: [CHECK: site owner to supply the named reviewer or reviewers, relevant qualifications and areas of competence.]

Health and scientific content requires approval from the named reviewer with relevant expertise. The publication record must identify the reviewer, scope of review and approval date. Where suitable expertise is unavailable, the piece must be held back rather than labelled expert-reviewed.

Health information is educational, not personal medical advice. Personal questions should be directed to a GP, pharmacist or midwife, as appropriate.

Use of AI

AI tools may assist with planning, drafting, editing and identifying research leads. Their output is not a source and does not count as verification.

Before publication, a human editor must read the complete piece, check its factual claims against the cited material, examine its reasoning and approve the final wording. AI-generated references must be located and read before use.

Writers must not enter confidential material or identifiable reader correspondence into an AI service without an approved data-protection assessment. Substantial AI assistance must be recorded internally and disclosed in the piece’s research note.

Images and illustrations

Images must be either generated illustrations or photographs used with an appropriate licence. Image records must identify their origin and retain relevant licence and attribution details.

AI-generated images must be visibly identified as illustrations. They are not documentary evidence and must never imply that they depict a real named farm, person, historical event or machine tested by the site.

Photographs used to establish a particular location or event require verified provenance. Captions and alternative text must describe the image without adding unsupported claims.

Independence and commercial relationships

Editorial conclusions must not be bought or made conditional on a favourable assessment. Recommendations must follow stated criteria, not commission arrangements.

Any relevant affiliate relationship, sponsorship, supplied product or other commercial interest must be disclosed clearly before readers encounter the affected recommendation or link. Advertising must be distinguishable from editorial content; a disclosure hidden elsewhere on the site is not sufficient.

Suppliers may flag factual errors, but must not have approval rights over editorial conclusions.

Corrections and disputed claims

Readers should report a concern with the page title or address, the disputed wording and any supporting evidence.

Corrections contact: [CHECK: site owner to supply and test the public reporting route.]

The responsible editor must log the report, assess its seriousness and examine the original sources. Potentially harmful health or safety guidance must be restricted or removed while it is investigated.

Disputed technical or scientific claims must be referred to the relevant specialist reviewer. If disagreement remains, the editor must seek an additional suitably qualified assessment and document the evidence, decision and reasons. Unresolved claims must not remain presented as settled facts.

Material corrections require a visible, dated notice explaining what changed and why. Minor spelling or formatting fixes do not need a notice. The internal record must preserve the original wording and the correction decision.

Updates and review dates

Each piece must show a meaningful “Last checked” date. Changing that date requires an actual review, not simply a formatting edit.

This policy, and content involving specifications, regulations or statistics, must be reviewed at least every 12 months and sooner when relevant sources change. Other content must be revisited when new evidence, reader reports or editorial checks identify a need.

For the site’s purpose and background, read about us.