Editorial Policy & Independence
Last updated: 16 June 2026This page explains how Reviewner produces its reviews and scores, the standards our team holds itself to, and the rules that keep our judgments independent. It sits alongside our Methodology page, which sets out the testing and scoring process in detail, and our Advertising & Disclosure page, which explains how we make money.
1. Our Editorial Mission
Reviewner exists to help people choose AI tools with confidence. We do that by testing tools ourselves, researching the wider evidence about them, and publishing a clear, independent assessment — including a Reviewner Score — for each one. Our goal is to be useful and honest, even when that means saying a popular tool falls short.
2. How We Form a Verdict
Our reviews combine first-hand testing with structured research, not opinion alone. In summary:
- Hands-on testing. We use the tools ourselves against real tasks, rather than relying only on vendor claims or marketing material.
- Wider research. We weigh publicly available evidence — such as documented user experiences and expert commentary — to balance our own testing against a broader picture.
- A consistent scoring framework. Every tool is assessed against the same six dimensions — Output Quality, Ease of Use, Value for Money, Feature Depth, Reliability, and Community & Support — producing a 0–10 score on each. Each dimension blends our hands-on test result (60%) with verified third-party reviews and social signal (40%). The full method, including the dimension weights and how the Reviewner Score is built, is on our Methodology page.
Reviews reflect our assessment as of their publication date. Because AI tools change quickly, we revisit and re-score tools over time, and a score can go up or down as a product evolves.
3. Editorial Oversight & Reviewer of Record
Every review has a reviewer of record — the team member responsible for that tool’s testing, score, and verdict. The reviewer of record signs off on every test run, writes the verdict and “best for” segments, and is accountable for the assessment. A score can be overridden only with documented reasoning, and every override is logged. Editorial review happens before any number changes on the public site, to confirm the assessment is supported by our testing and research and follows our scoring framework. Our team is described on our About page.
4. Independence From Commercial Influence
Our editorial judgments are made independently of any commercial relationship. This is the rule we treat as non-negotiable:
- We accept no payment from the companies we review in exchange for coverage, a higher Reviewner Score, or a better ranking.
- There are no paid placements or sponsored reviews on Reviewner.
- Our revenue — reader memberships (Reviewner Pro) and category-agnostic advertising — is kept separate from the editorial team and has no bearing on what we publish.
- Advertisers and members cannot buy, influence, or preview our scores, rankings, or conclusions.
- We never send a review to a company before publication — vendors learn what we wrote when readers do.
- Every score change is logged with its date, magnitude, and reason in a visible change log, and a major change triggers a follow-up post explaining it.
For the full picture of how we make money and how we keep it separate from editorial, see our Advertising & Disclosure page.
5. Conflicts of Interest
If a reviewer has held a role at, consulted for, or holds equity in a tool we cover, that fact is disclosed on the review page and the reviewer recuses from scoring it. We do not let an undisclosed interest shape a review. If you believe a review of ours has an undisclosed conflict, please tell us using the contact details below and we will investigate.
6. Accuracy & Sourcing
We aim to be accurate and fair. We base statements of fact on our own testing or on sources we consider reliable, we distinguish our opinions from facts, and we give tools a fair characterisation rather than a misleading one. Where we draw on third-party information, we do so from publicly available or permitted sources. Reviews are our opinion and are not professional, financial, or technical advice; you should make your own assessment before relying on any tool.
7. Corrections
We correct mistakes promptly and in the open. Confirmed errors are corrected at the top of the affected page within 24 hours of confirmation, with the original wording preserved and the change explained. You can read the full process on our Corrections Policy page. To flag a possible error, contact us at hello@reviewner.com.
8. Reader Feedback & Right of Reply
We welcome feedback from readers and from the makers of tools we review. If a company believes we have made a factual error about its product, it can contact us and we will review the point against our testing and evidence, and correct anything we got wrong. Engaging with us in this way does not buy a better review — it only helps us be accurate.
9. Contact
Questions about our editorial standards or independence? Contact us at hello@reviewner.com or via our contact page.