Last updated: 3 September 2026

This policy covers how NextTechBlog decides what to publish, how we check it, and what we do when we get it wrong. It applies to staff and outside contributors alike.

Sourcing standards

We go to primary sources wherever one exists: a company’s own engineering blog or filing, a standards document, a research paper, a regulator’s decision, a court record, or a named person on the record.

Coverage from other publications helps us find a story but does not substitute for the underlying source. If another outlet broke a story and we cannot reach the source material ourselves, we credit them by name and link to their piece rather than presenting it as our own.

Specific claims — numbers, dates, quotations, specifications, prices — are linked to where they came from. If a figure cannot be verified we leave it out or say plainly that it is unconfirmed, and we do not launder a rumour into a fact by attributing it to “reports”. Vendor benchmarks are labelled as such, and volatile facts are date-stamped (“as of mid-2026”) so an article ages honestly.

Fact-checking

Before publication, an editor other than the writer checks the article against its sources: that each linked source says what the article claims; that names, numbers, units and dates are right; that quotations are in context; and that the headline is supported by the body rather than overstating it.

Where a claim is contested we say so rather than picking the more dramatic version, where we are uncertain we say we are uncertain, and speculation is labelled. When an article makes a significant negative claim about a company, we seek comment and say whether a response was received, declined or not answered by our deadline.

Use of AI tools

We use AI tools in parts of our workflow, and would rather say so plainly than pretend otherwise.

What we use them for: searching and summarising documents we then read ourselves; transcribing interviews; suggesting structure or headlines; checking readability; generating code examples a human then runs; and drafting routine passages an editor rewrites.

What we do not use them for: generating facts, figures, dates, quotations or citations; publishing articles without substantive human rewriting and verification; fabricating images of real people, events or products; or writing anything under a byline whose owner has not personally checked it.

Every article is reviewed, verified and signed off by a named human. A model’s output is an unverified draft, never a source — anything it produces must be confirmed against a real document before it can appear. AI systems invent plausible citations, and catching that is part of the fact-check.

Corrections and updates

We correct errors promptly and visibly, rather than deleting a mistake and carrying on as though it never happened.

• Corrections — the error is fixed and a dated note at the foot of the article states what was wrong and what it now says.
• Updates — when a story develops we add a dated update note. The original text stays unless it has become wrong, in which case it is corrected.
• Clarifications — where something was accurate but ambiguous, we reword it and add a dated clarification note.
• Minor fixes — typos, broken links and formatting are fixed without a note, if the meaning does not change.

Corrections to a headline or central claim are noted at the top, not buried at the bottom. To request one, email [email protected] with the URL, the sentence at issue and a source showing the correct information. We reply within five business days.

Independence from advertisers

Editorial decisions are made by editors. Advertisers, affiliate partners and sponsors have no influence over what we cover or conclude. They do not see articles before publication, cannot request changes, and cannot have accurate reporting removed.

Sponsored content is labelled clearly, kept visually distinct, carries the appropriate link attributes, and never appears under a staff byline. Buying a placement buys that placement and nothing else, and affiliate commission rates play no part in verdicts or rankings. Details are in our Disclaimer and Advertise With Us pages.

Conflicts of interest

Writers and editors must disclose any financial or personal interest in a subject they cover: shareholdings beyond broad index funds, employment or consulting relationships, advisory roles, close ties to people at the company, and paid work for a competitor.

Where a conflict is material the writer is reassigned; otherwise the relationship is disclosed in the article. Free products, event travel, accommodation and review loans are disclosed. We do not accept cash, gifts of significant value, equity or paid trips in exchange for coverage.

Plagiarism and attribution

Plagiarism ends a contributor relationship immediately and the piece is unpublished with a note explaining why. Sources are paraphrased in our own words and linked; we do not lift sentences or reproduce a source’s structure while swapping synonyms.

Direct quotation is kept short, in quotation marks, attributed, and used only where the exact wording matters. Where another publication’s original reporting is the basis for a story, they are credited by name with a link.

Images and licensing

We use only images we have the right to use: our own photographs and screenshots, press imagery supplied for editorial use, licensed stock, public-domain material, and openly licensed work whose terms we follow. Creative Commons images carry the creator’s name and the licence.

Screenshots and product photography are used for identification, review and commentary. We do not alter photographs in ways that change what they depict; adjustments are limited to cropping, scaling and basic colour correction. Composites and AI-generated imagery are labelled. If an image of yours has been used without permission, contact [email protected] and we will remove or credit it while we investigate.

Anonymous sources

We prefer named, on-the-record sources. Anonymity is granted only when the information is genuinely in the public interest, cannot reasonably be obtained on the record, and the source faces a real risk — usually to employment or safety — from being named.

An editor must know the source’s identity and approve the arrangement, even when readers will not. We explain why anonymity was granted and describe the source’s position closely enough to convey credibility without identifying them. Anonymous claims of wrongdoing need corroboration before publication. We do not grant anonymity so a competitor can be attacked unaccountably, and we honour confidentiality once given.

Unpublishing

Published articles are part of the record and are not removed on request. We do not unpublish because a subject changed their mind, because coverage is unflattering, or because an SEO agency asks. Requests to remove accurate, sourced reporting are declined.

We will correct or update an article, and act further only in narrow cases: where removal is legally required, where publication creates a genuine risk to someone’s safety, where personal information was published in error, or where a piece breached this policy beyond correcting. Even then we prefer to redact the problem or leave a note saying the article was withdrawn and why, rather than deleting it silently.

This policy is general information, not legal advice; anyone adopting something like it should have a qualified lawyer review it. Questions, complaints and correction requests go to [email protected].