EDITORIAL POLICY
How we select, explain and review resources
Our international edition focuses on education, reproducible research and practical tools. A useful guide should explain who an option suits, what evidence supports it and where its limitations matter.
Use sources readers can check
Factual claims should link to original papers, official documentation or provider terms as appropriate. A vendor’s description is identified as such. Comparisons should state their scope and criteria, with a date for information that can change.
Describe testing honestly
When a review includes our own test, it should state the version, setup, task and result, including failures and limitations. A desk review based on documents is described as a desk review. A demonstration, simulation or promotional example does not establish clinical or scientific validity.
Include accessible alternatives
Where useful, guides should consider free documentation, open datasets and open-source tools alongside paid options. Suitability depends on the learner or project; price and commission alone do not establish quality.
Keep changing information traceable
Published reviews should identify their review date and the source for current terms. Prices, availability, licences and curricula can change. Readers should confirm those details with the provider before purchasing or starting a project.
Make corrections visible
Readers can report an error with the page URL, the disputed statement and supporting evidence. Substantive corrections should explain what changed. Uncertain claims should be qualified while their source is checked.
Translate meaning and verify local details
International language editions share an editorial approach. Translations should preserve technical meaning and limitations, with local availability and teaching language checked separately. The Persian edition has its own content and marketing context. Please report wording that needs clarification.
Disclose commercial relationships
If an eligible link becomes an affiliate link, a clear disclosure should appear close to the relevant recommendation; qualifying links are marked as sponsored. A qualifying purchase may earn Neuroprocessing a commission under that programme’s terms. Provider links do not by themselves indicate a partnership. Commercial relationships should not decide an editorial ranking, and sponsored placements should be clearly labelled.