Editorial Policy & Review Methodology

1. How we choose what to cover

We prioritise topics where our team already has hands-on experience or an operational need. Reader questions submitted through the contact page feed directly into our editorial calendar. We do not accept paid placements on our editorial calendar, ever.

2. Our tool testing methodology

• Every tool review is based on at least two weeks of real, hands-on use by a named member of our team on live client or internal work. Vendor demos alone are never enough.
• We test on the paid tier where possible, using our own credit card, so we experience the same friction paying customers do.
• For each tool we score five dimensions on a 1–5 scale: output quality, workflow fit, reliability, pricing value and support quality. Scores are recorded before the write-up begins.
• We test against at least two competing tools on the same task so comparisons are grounded in the same input.
• We publish screenshots of our own runs — never vendor marketing screenshots — unless we explicitly say otherwise.

3. Sourcing & citations

We cite primary sources whenever possible: vendor documentation, published research, official press releases, named experts we have spoken to, and our own test data. All external links open in a new tab and are marked rel="nofollow" by default. Statistics include the source and the date they were retrieved.

4. Editorial workflow

1. Author drafts the article after completing testing.
2. A second editor fact-checks every claim, verifies pricing and feature parity, and reviews for clarity.
3. The Managing Editor signs off before the article is scheduled for publication.
4. Evergreen guides are re-reviewed at least every six months and re-tested when a covered product ships a major release.

5. Use of AI in our own workflow

We use AI tools — including ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity — to assist with research, outlining and copy editing. We do not publish AI-generated content as-is. Every article is written, edited, fact-checked and signed off by a named human on our team. Any block of text that includes an AI-generated example (e.g. a sample prompt output) is clearly labelled inline.

6. Advertising, affiliate & sponsorship disclosure

• Display advertising is served by third parties (currently under review by Google AdSense). Advertisers have no input into editorial content.
• We use affiliate links on some product mentions. When we do, the article carries a disclosure at the top. Affiliate relationships never determine whether a tool is recommended or what score it receives.
• Sponsored content is clearly labelled "Sponsored" and lives in a separate visual template. It is written by our team but flagged as paid placement. It never appears in a review or comparison.

7. Corrections policy

Spot something wrong? Email corrections@rayimop.com. We respond within two business days. Corrections are noted at the top of the affected article with the date and a short description of what changed. Substantive changes are logged in the article's revision history.

8. Retractions & unpublishing

We retract articles only when a factual error is so central to the piece that a correction cannot repair it. Retracted URLs return a 410 status and a retraction notice explaining why. We do not silently delete published content.

9. Reader privacy & comments

See our Privacy Policy. Newsletter subscribers can unsubscribe at any time from any email; their data is never sold. We do not currently host public comments.

10. Ownership & independence

AI Productivity Hub is independently owned. No AI vendor covered on this site holds any ownership stake in the publication, and no vendor sees or approves a review before publication.