Last updated: July 24, 2026
Our editorial conclusions are not for sale
ReaThis is an independent global technology publication.
We do not accept payment in exchange for positive reviews, higher rankings, favorable recommendations, guaranteed coverage, or the removal of legitimate criticism.
The companies, products, services, and industries we cover do not control our editorial conclusions.
This policy explains how ReaThis protects its independence, separates editorial work from commercial interests, handles potential conflicts, uses artificial intelligence, and holds authors accountable for what they publish.
Our purpose is straightforward:
Readers should be able to trust that a ReaThis article was created to inform them, not to satisfy the company being covered.
Why editorial independence matters
Technology coverage can influence expensive and long-term decisions.
Readers may use our work when choosing software, trusting an AI platform, moving business operations to the cloud, buying a device, evaluating a company, or deciding how a new technology may affect them.
Those decisions should not be shaped by hidden payments, private commercial arrangements, public-relations pressure, or ranking systems designed around commissions.
ReaThis therefore separates editorial judgment from commercial influence.
A company may provide information, product access, documentation, or a response to criticism.
It cannot purchase our conclusion.
Our editorial mission
ReaThis exists to help readers understand the products, companies, systems, and ideas shaping modern technology.
We publish:
- Reviews
- Comparisons
- Rankings
- Buying and implementation guides
- Explainers
- Industry analysis
- Company coverage
- Technology reporting
- Commentary
- Investigations
- Research-based articles
Our coverage may include artificial intelligence, software, SaaS, cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, privacy, consumer technology, enterprise systems, digital platforms, technology companies, emerging science, and the wider effects of technology on society.
Whatever the subject, our work should help readers:
- Understand what happened
- Evaluate whether a claim is credible
- Recognize meaningful risks and limitations
- Compare practical alternatives
- Understand who benefits
- Identify who may be poorly served
- Make a better-informed decision
You can learn more about the publication and its direction on the About ReaThis page.
Editorial independence
ReaThis retains control over:
- Which subjects we cover
- Which products we review
- Which companies we investigate
- Which sources we use
- How testing is conducted
- How articles are structured
- Which strengths and weaknesses are included
- What score or ranking is assigned
- What recommendation is made
- Whether an article is published
- Whether a verdict later changes
No outside company or individual receives approval over our final editorial work unless a separate legal requirement applies.
What companies cannot buy
No company can pay ReaThis to receive:
- A positive review
- A higher score
- A better ranking
- A recommendation
- A “best” designation
- Preferential placement
- Guaranteed inclusion
- Softer criticism
- Removal of a legitimate finding
- Approval before publication
- A link presented as editorial judgment
- A rewritten conclusion
- Suppression of an unfavorable article
Payment, sponsorship, product access, advertising, affiliate commissions, partnerships, or possible future business relationships must never determine an editorial verdict.
No pay-to-play rankings
ReaThis rankings are not pay-to-play.
When products are ranked or recommended, their positions should reflect the criteria relevant to that comparison.
Depending on the category, those criteria may include:
- Performance
- Reliability
- Accuracy
- Security
- Privacy
- Ease of use
- Pricing
- Support
- Integrations
- Scalability
- Product limitations
- Suitability for a particular user
- Overall value
A company cannot pay to move above a competitor.
The full product-testing, scoring, ranking, and research process is explained on the How We Evaluate Technology page.
No disguised advertising
ReaThis does not publish advertising disguised as independent editorial work.
We do not present the following as ordinary editorial content without clear disclosure:
- Sponsored articles
- Vendor-written articles
- Paid reviews
- Advertorials
- Commercial product placements
- Promotional rankings
- Paid company profiles
- Content supplied by a public-relations agency
- Material written primarily to satisfy an advertiser
If ReaThis introduces sponsored or commercial content in the future, it must be clearly labeled so readers can distinguish it from independent editorial work.
Sponsored content must not be allowed to imitate an independent review, ranking, investigation, or editorial recommendation.
Editorial and commercial separation
ReaThis is currently funded by its founder.
At present, ReaThis does not use:
- Display advertising
- Sponsored editorial content
- Affiliate links
- Paid product placements
- Vendor-funded rankings
- Payments for reviews
- Commercially influenced recommendations
ReaThis may introduce advertising, subscriptions, memberships, affiliate relationships, licensing, events, sponsorships, or other revenue models as the publication develops.
Any future commercial activity must remain separate from editorial decision-making.
Commercial considerations may influence practical business decisions, such as whether the publication can afford to test a product or assign resources to a subject.
They must not determine:
- The conclusion of an article
- The score assigned to a product
- A product’s position in a ranking
- Whether legitimate criticism is published
- Whether an error is corrected
- Whether a recommendation is withdrawn
If our funding model changes, we will update this page and add clear disclosures where necessary.
Affiliate links
ReaThis does not currently use affiliate links.
If affiliate links are introduced in the future:
- Their presence will be disclosed clearly
- A potential commission will not determine whether a product is included
- Commission rates will not determine ranking positions
- A company will not be able to purchase a favorable verdict
- Products without affiliate programs may still be recommended
- Products with affiliate programs may receive negative conclusions
- Existing criticism will not be removed to protect revenue
A recommendation should remain useful even when no commission is available.
Product access, trials, and review accounts
A company may provide ReaThis with:
- A free trial
- Temporary product access
- A demonstration account
- Product credits
- Technical documentation
- A product briefing
- Access to an executive or subject-matter expert
- Hardware or equipment for evaluation
Providing access does not guarantee:
- Coverage
- Publication
- A positive review
- A particular score
- A recommendation
- A higher ranking
- Approval before publication
- Removal of criticism
Where complimentary access could reasonably influence how readers interpret a review, we aim to disclose it.
Whenever practical, we try to evaluate the same product experience available to ordinary users.
Gifts, travel, and hospitality
ReaThis does not accept gifts, travel, accommodation, hospitality, or personal benefits when they could reasonably influence editorial judgment.
Low-value items that are incidental to ordinary professional interaction may be accepted where refusing them would be impractical and where they do not create an obligation.
Expensive gifts, personal incentives, cash, gift cards, luxury hospitality, or benefits intended to influence coverage should be declined or returned.
If accepting travel or event access is necessary for legitimate reporting, the arrangement should be disclosed where it could affect a reader’s understanding of the coverage.
Conflicts of interest
Authors and editors should avoid covering a subject where a personal, financial, professional, or family relationship could compromise their judgment.
Potential conflicts may include:
- Current or previous employment
- Consulting relationships
- Investments or ownership interests
- Paid advisory work
- Close personal relationships
- Business partnerships
- Gifts or benefits
- Ongoing legal disputes
- Strong undisclosed advocacy
- A direct financial interest in the outcome
A possible conflict should be disclosed to the responsible editor before work begins.
Depending on the circumstances, ReaThis may:
- Add a clear disclosure
- Assign another writer
- Introduce additional editorial review
- Limit the author’s involvement
- Decline the coverage
Disclosure does not automatically make every conflict acceptable.
Some conflicts are better avoided entirely.
Authors must not trade on confidential knowledge
Authors and editors should not use confidential or unpublished information obtained through ReaThis for personal financial gain.
This includes information relating to:
- Company announcements
- Product launches
- Acquisitions
- Security incidents
- Funding events
- Earnings
- Regulatory action
- Unreleased research
- Embargoed information
ReaThis contributors must not buy, sell, recommend, or otherwise exploit an investment based on material non-public information obtained through editorial work.
Evidence before claims
ReaThis aims to base factual claims on reliable evidence.
Depending on the article, that evidence may include:
- First-hand testing
- Official documentation
- Product pricing
- Technical specifications
- Privacy policies
- Security disclosures
- Regulatory documents
- Research papers
- Public records
- Interviews
- Company statements
- Direct support interactions
- Credible independent reporting
A company’s marketing material may be used to explain what the company claims.
It should not automatically be treated as proof that the claim is accurate.
When information cannot be independently verified, the article should make that limitation clear.
Primary sources and independent verification
We prioritize primary sources where practical, especially for:
- Product specifications
- Pricing
- Company announcements
- Legal documents
- Security policies
- Regulatory decisions
- Research findings
- Technical changes
Primary sources can establish what a company officially says or offers.
They do not replace independent analysis.
Where a company’s claim is disputed, incomplete, unclear, or important to the article’s conclusion, we aim to seek additional evidence.
Contacting companies for comment
ReaThis may contact a company or individual before publication when:
- Serious criticism is being reported
- A factual claim requires clarification
- Public information appears contradictory
- A security, privacy, or legal issue is involved
- A fair opportunity to respond would improve the article
- The subject has access to important non-public context
A request for comment does not give the subject control over the article.
Companies may:
- Correct factual information
- Provide documentation
- Explain their position
- Dispute our interpretation
- Identify missing context
They may not:
- Approve the article
- Rewrite our analysis
- Choose the headline
- Remove supported criticism
- Negotiate a score
- Demand a higher ranking
- Prevent publication merely by declining to respond
When a company does not respond by a reasonable deadline, we may publish using the evidence available.
Embargoes and advance information
ReaThis may agree to reasonable embargoes when early access helps us prepare accurate and useful coverage.
An embargo does not create a promise of:
- Positive coverage
- Publication
- A particular headline
- A recommendation
- Coverage at all
We may reject an embargo that contains unreasonable conditions, restricts independent reporting, prevents necessary verification, or attempts to control the conclusion.
Named and accountable authorship
ReaThis aims to publish articles under the name of the person responsible for the work.
Authors are expected to:
- Research carefully
- Use relevant sources
- Distinguish fact from opinion
- Disclose important limitations
- Identify potential conflicts
- Avoid plagiarism
- Correct meaningful errors
- Take responsibility for their conclusions
Where an article is substantially updated by another editor, the page may identify the person responsible for the update where appropriate.
As ReaThis grows, author pages should provide information about relevant experience, subject areas, and published work.
Accuracy and corrections
ReaThis works to publish accurate and current information.
Mistakes may still occur, and technology can change after publication.
When credible evidence shows that an article contains a meaningful error, we review it.
Corrections may involve:
- Fixing a factual error
- Updating pricing or product features
- Clarifying misleading wording
- Correcting attribution
- Revising a rating
- Changing a ranking
- Withdrawing a recommendation
- Adding missing context
- Retracting an article whose central claims are unreliable
We do not refuse a valid correction merely because it is embarrassing or inconsistent with an earlier conclusion.
We also do not change accurate reporting simply because a company dislikes it.
The complete process is explained in the Corrections and Updates Policy.
Reviews and verdicts may change
A ReaThis review reflects the evidence available at the time of evaluation.
A verdict may change when:
- Pricing changes
- Features are added or removed
- Performance improves or declines
- Security concerns emerge
- Privacy terms change
- Customer support deteriorates
- A company changes ownership
- Better alternatives become available
- New testing produces different results
- Earlier evidence is shown to be incomplete
We do not preserve an outdated recommendation simply to avoid contradicting our earlier work.
Accuracy matters more than defending an old opinion.
Artificial intelligence in our editorial process
ReaThis may use artificial intelligence tools to support limited parts of its editorial workflow.
Possible uses include:
- Organizing research notes
- Transcribing interviews
- Comparing documents
- Generating research questions
- Reviewing article structure
- Identifying areas requiring verification
- Supporting grammar and clarity checks
AI-generated material is not treated as reliable evidence on its own.
Any factual claim suggested by an AI system must be verified using direct testing, primary sources, or other credible evidence before publication.
AI tools must not make final decisions about:
- Whether an article is published
- What conclusion it reaches
- How a product is ranked
- Whether criticism is removed
- Whether a correction is accepted
- Whether a source is considered credible
Final editorial responsibility remains with a human author or editor.
We do not knowingly publish unverified AI-generated claims as fact.
AI-generated images and media
ReaThis may use AI-assisted or AI-generated images, illustrations, or visual elements where appropriate.
When an image could reasonably be mistaken for a real photograph, event, person, document, or product demonstration, it should be labeled or described clearly.
AI-generated visuals must not be used to:
- Falsely depict a real event
- Fabricate evidence
- Misrepresent a person’s actions
- Create a fake product-testing result
- Alter documentary material in a misleading way
Illustrative use should remain distinguishable from factual evidence.
Plagiarism and attribution
ReaThis does not knowingly publish plagiarized work.
Authors must not present another person’s reporting, writing, research, images, or ideas as their own.
When ReaThis relies on another publication, researcher, document, or expert, we aim to provide appropriate attribution.
Direct quotations should be clearly identified and used within appropriate limits.
If plagiarism or serious attribution failure is discovered, ReaThis may:
- Correct the article
- Add attribution
- Remove affected material
- Suspend the contributor
- Retract the article
- Publish an explanatory notice
Anonymous and confidential sources
ReaThis may use anonymous or confidential sources when the information is important and the source could face meaningful professional, legal, financial, or personal risk from being identified.
Anonymous sourcing should not be used merely for convenience.
Where possible:
- The source’s identity should be known to the responsible editor
- The source’s access to the information should be assessed
- Important claims should be independently confirmed
- The article should explain why anonymity was granted without revealing identifying details
Confidentiality is a serious editorial commitment.
However, no method of communication can be guaranteed to be completely secure. Potential sources should avoid sending highly sensitive information through ordinary website forms or standard email without first discussing an appropriate method.
Privacy and personal information
ReaThis aims to avoid publishing private personal information unless it is lawfully obtained, relevant, and justified by a clear public interest.
Extra care should be taken with:
- Home addresses
- Personal telephone numbers
- Private email addresses
- Government identification numbers
- Medical information
- Financial account details
- Information about children
- Information that creates a serious safety risk
Public availability alone does not always justify republication.
Editorial decisions involving personal information should consider relevance, proportionality, public interest, safety, and applicable law.
Our website data practices are explained in the ReaThis Privacy Policy.
Fairness and the right to respond
ReaThis aims to represent criticism fairly.
Fairness does not require giving every viewpoint equal weight when the evidence strongly supports one conclusion.
It does require us to:
- Avoid deliberately misleading omissions
- Distinguish allegations from established facts
- Include important context
- Seek relevant responses where appropriate
- Correct significant inaccuracies
- Avoid presenting opinion as proven fact
A company’s response may be included, summarized, or linked where it meaningfully improves the reader’s understanding.
Editorial diversity and global context
ReaThis aims to serve readers across countries, industries, professions, and levels of technical experience.
Technology products and policies do not affect every reader in the same way.
Where relevant, our coverage should consider differences in:
- Regional availability
- Local pricing
- Language support
- Payment methods
- Privacy law
- Regulation
- Infrastructure
- Accessibility
- Customer support
- Cultural and economic context
We do not assume that one country, market, or type of user represents the entire technology world.
Accessibility and clarity
ReaThis aims to make complex technology understandable without making it inaccurate.
Editorial content should avoid unnecessary jargon. Where technical terms are necessary, they should be explained in context.
Headlines should accurately reflect the article and should not deliberately mislead readers merely to attract clicks.
Images, captions, charts, and visual elements should support understanding rather than distort the evidence.
Headlines and presentation
Headlines, thumbnails, excerpts, and social-media posts should accurately represent the underlying article.
We aim to avoid:
- Misleading clickbait
- Unsupported certainty
- Exaggerated claims
- Headlines contradicted by the article
- Manufactured controversy
- Images that falsely imply an event occurred
- Ratings or statistics presented without context
A strong headline may attract attention.
It should not obtain that attention by deceiving the reader.
Opinion and analysis
ReaThis may publish opinion and analysis.
Opinion should be based on identifiable reasoning and should not be presented as neutral fact.
Where practical, articles should make clear whether they are primarily:
- News
- Analysis
- Review
- Commentary
- Guide
- Comparison
- Opinion
Authors may express strong conclusions, but those conclusions should remain grounded in evidence and fair representation.
Reader and company feedback
Readers, researchers, developers, companies, and subject-matter experts are encouraged to contact ReaThis with:
- Correction requests
- Supporting evidence
- Updated documentation
- Missing context
- Story suggestions
- Concerns about conflicts
- Questions about our methods
Feedback is evaluated according to its relevance and evidentiary value.
The status, size, influence, or commercial importance of the person submitting feedback does not determine the outcome.
For general enquiries, use the ReaThis Contact page or email [email protected].
Enforcement of this policy
This policy applies to ReaThis authors, editors, contributors, and others involved in producing editorial content.
A violation may lead to:
- Additional editorial review
- Correction of an article
- Addition of a disclosure
- Removal from an assignment
- Suspension of contributor access
- Retraction
- Termination of a contributor relationship
The appropriate response depends on the seriousness of the issue and whether it was accidental, negligent, reckless, or deliberate.
Changes to this policy
ReaThis may update this Editorial Policy as the publication grows, introduces new formats, works with contributors, or changes its commercial model.
Material changes will be published on this page with a revised “Last updated” date.
A policy change will not be used to hide a previous conflict or retroactively justify improper editorial conduct.
Our promise to readers
When you read a ReaThis review, comparison, ranking, investigation, guide, or analysis, you should be able to trust that the conclusion was reached independently.
You may not always agree with our judgment.
A company may strongly disagree with our findings.
That does not change the standard.
Our work should be:
- Evidence-based
- Clearly explained
- Commercially independent
- Honest about its limitations
- Open to correction
- Accountable to the reader
The conclusion should belong to ReaThis, not to the company being covered.
Contact ReaThis
To report a possible conflict, factual error, policy concern, or editorial issue, contact:
Email: [email protected]
Contact page: https://www.reathis.com/contact-us/
You may also review:
