ExpertStack Editorial Guidelines.

Accuracy and Fairness

Every claim published on ExpertStack must be substantiated. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of their submissions, but our expert review process exists as an additional safeguard — not a substitute for authorial diligence.

When an article makes negative assertions about individuals, companies, or products, the subject must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before publication. No individual or organization should be caught off-guard by findings published about them in ExpertStack. For sensitive investigations or controversial analysis pieces, authors must document their outreach efforts and any responses received.

We do not give equal weight to all sides of a debate merely for the sake of balance. Where expert consensus is clear, we represent it as such. Where genuine controversy exists — competing interpretations of data, contested policy outcomes, emerging fields with unsettled evidence — we report the strongest version of each position and clearly acknowledge what remains uncertain.

Corrections and Updates

We take errors seriously and correct them promptly. If you believe a published article contains a factual error, notify the editorial team immediately.

How to issue a correction:

• Make the necessary change to the article text. Do not use strikethrough.
• Add an italicised note at the end of the article:

  Correction (August 14): An earlier version of this article stated that the funding round closed at $40 million. The correct figure is $400 million.

• If the error materially affects the article's argument or headline, the editor may add an editor's note at the top of the piece as well.

Corrections are not required for minor typographical or grammatical fixes unless they affect the meaning of the article.

How to issue an update:

When new information emerges or additional context becomes available after publication, the article should be updated and readers notified.

• For rapidly developing stories, add a datestamped paragraph near the top:

  Update (3:15pm CET): The company has now confirmed the acquisition in a statement to ExpertStack.

• For minor additions — a brief clarifying sentence, a comment from a company — insert the update inline and note it in parentheses.
• For substantive revisions, add an italicised note at the end listing each area of change:

  This article was updated on August 14 to include the full text of the regulatory response and to correct the original funding figure.

All corrections and updates must be approved by an editor before publication.

Purpose

ExpertStack's distinguishing feature is that submitted articles are reviewed by practicing industry experts before publication. This review is not a peer-review process in the academic sense; it is a practitioner credibility check — an assessment of whether the analysis holds up against real-world knowledge of the field.

How It Works

1. Submission: Authors submit a completed draft via the ExpertStack submissions portal. The article must include a references section and a brief author bio disclosing relevant experience and any conflicts of interest.
2. Editorial screening: The editorial team assesses the submission for fit, quality, and compliance with these guidelines. Submissions that do not meet minimum standards are returned with feedback at this stage.
3. Expert assignment: Qualifying submissions are assigned to one or more expert reviewers drawn from ExpertStack's reviewer panel. Reviewers are selected based on domain expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest with the submission's subject matter.
4. Expert review: Reviewers assess the submission for technical accuracy, analytical rigour, representational fairness, and contextual grounding. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors unless the reviewer consents.
5. Author revision: Authors are provided with reviewer feedback and given a defined window to revise. Major revisions may require a second review pass.
6. Editorial decision: Final publication decisions rest with the ExpertStack editorial team, not with reviewers. A positive expert review is necessary but not sufficient for publication.

What Expert Review Does Not Cover

Expert review assesses technical and analytical merit. Editors retain responsibility for:

• Headline accuracy and framing
• Legal compliance and defamation risk
• Adherence to these editorial guidelines
• Final factual verification

Authors must clearly identify the sources underlying their analysis. This includes:

• Named individuals interviewed or quoted
• Studies, reports, datasets, or public records relied upon
• Any AI-assisted tools used in research or drafting (see Section 6)

In most cases, all sources should be named and quoted on the record. When an individual requests to speak on background, meaning their information may inform the article but without direct attribution — authors must establish clearly what this means before the conversation takes place, as the term is interpreted differently across industries.

Anonymous sources are permitted only when:

• The source has a genuine and documented fear of professional or personal retribution, and
• The information cannot be obtained through any other means

Where an anonymous source is used, the article must explain to readers why anonymity was granted. Authors must disclose the identity of anonymous sources to their editor; this information is held in confidence and must not be shared through unsecured channels.

ExpertStack editors and contributing authors must always identify themselves as working for ExpertStack when approaching sources. Misrepresentation is never permitted.

When working with sources who are minors (under 18), authors must obtain documented parental or guardian consent before conducting interviews or publishing any contributed content.

Conflicts of interest among sources: Authors should ask sources directly about any conflicts of interest that may not be apparent from the source's public profile, and disclose these within the article.

Authors

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationship with the subjects of their articles. This includes:

• Current or recent employment at a company discussed
• Equity, stock, or other financial interest in companies covered
• Receipt of grants, consulting fees, or speaking honoraria from relevant organisations
• Personal relationships with key figures discussed

Disclosures are made in the author bio and, where material, within the article itself. Editors will determine, based on the nature and significance of the conflict, whether disclosure is sufficient or whether the author should be reassigned or the submission declined.

Authors must not write about companies in which they hold direct equity positions. Cryptocurrency holdings must be disclosed in any article touching on digital assets.

Expert Reviewers

Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. This includes employment by, investment in, or a close professional relationship with any organisation that is a primary subject of the submission. Editors will reassign the review if a material conflict exists.

Political Activity

Authors and reviewers should avoid public partisan activity that would reasonably create the appearance of bias in their ExpertStack contributions. This includes public campaigning for political candidates, parties, or policies on matters directly related to the subjects they cover for ExpertStack.

ExpertStack's editorial coverage is independent of its commercial relationships. Advertisers and sponsors do not receive advance access to editorial content, and their commercial relationship with ExpertStack has no bearing on how they are covered.

Sponsored content published on ExpertStack platforms is always clearly labelled as "Sponsored" or "Presented by X". Sponsored content is produced without involvement from the ExpertStack editorial team. Its publication does not constitute an endorsement of the sponsor's products, services, or views.

Native advertising and branded content must be approved by the publisher for relevance to ExpertStack's audience and mission. The editorial team is not involved in this process.

Staff and freelance authors must not accept gifts exceeding €500 in aggregate value from any company or organisation within a calendar year, including conference samples or product giveaways. Where review samples (devices, software, services) are provided by companies, those items must be returned promptly after review. Reviews reflect honest assessments and are not conditional on sample provision.

Press event meals and conference attendance where media attendance fees are waived are acceptable. Paid press trips sponsored by companies being covered are not permitted, unless the travel is integral to the reporting (such as an embedded field assignment), in which case the support must be disclosed in the article.

ExpertStack encourages authors to use AI tools responsibly as part of their research and editorial process. Acceptable uses include: generating ideas, transcribing interviews, organising notes, summarising background materials, and drafting headlines or social copy.

We do not publish AI-generated article text. The analysis, argument, and prose of every ExpertStack article must be the author's own work. The limited exception is when the article itself is reporting on the capabilities or outputs of AI systems, in which case any AI-generated text must be clearly identified as such.

AI image-editing tools may be used in an assistive capacity. AI-generated images are only published when the article concerns AI-generated media or when the image is fully licensed and clear of copyright concerns. All AI-generated images and audio-visual content must be labelled as such wherever they appear.

Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of their work regardless of which tools were used in its production. The use of generative AI tools increases the obligation to verify facts independently, as these tools are known to produce plausible-sounding errors. Authors must take particular care to avoid inadvertent plagiarism when using generative AI.

All submitted work must be original. Text may not be copied from other publications, press releases, AI outputs, or any other source without being explicitly set off in quotation marks with clear attribution.

When authors reference their own previously published work, they should identify the original source and quote verbatim passages in quotation marks.

Authors are responsible for fact-checking their own submissions before filing. Editors conduct a further review during the editing process. For technically complex, sensitive, or high-profile investigations, the editorial team may commission an independent fact-check before publication.

Expert review is not a substitute for fact-checking. Reviewers assess analytical merit; factual verification remains the responsibility of authors and editors.

ExpertStack's editorial decisions are made independently of its investors, funders, and any institutional owners. No funder or owner may direct, influence, or veto editorial coverage. The editorial team will disclose any situation in which ExpertStack's ownership structure could reasonably be perceived to affect its coverage.