Editorial standards
Editorial policy
The Learning Web aims to make learning evidence understandable without making it sound more certain than it is. We prioritise systematic reviews, meta-analyses and recognised public bodies; verify cited sources directly; separate evidence from practical judgement; and correct material errors transparently.
Scope and audience
Our primary scope is practical learning technology: educational devices, educational software, study tools, learning use cases and services that support students, parents, educators or independent learners. General commercial software without a clear learning use case is outside this publication. Research and archive pages support this scope without becoming product promotions.
Source hierarchy
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses where the question and included studies fit.
- Primary research for specific mechanisms, history or gaps.
- Recognised education bodies and official documentation.
- Clearly labelled secondary explanation when it adds context rather than authority.
Claims, uncertainty and updates
Citations are opened and checked for the claim beside them. Wording distinguishes association from cause and a single study from a body of evidence. “Strong”, “Promising”, “Mixed”, “Historical framework” and “Unsupported” labels are used only when the page explains the judgement.
Published and last-reviewed dates must reflect real work. A typographical correction does not create a new substantive review date. Material errors are corrected promptly; the editor records what changed and why.
Originality and copyright
All editorial copy is written for this publication. We summarise and cite sources, avoid copying historical book text or assessments, and use media only with an appropriate right or licence. Rights holders can contact us with a specific concern.
AI-assisted drafting
AI may assist with research organisation, drafting or checking structure. It is not accepted as a source. Cited material is checked against the claim it supports, and substantive editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the publisher.
Images that help you understand and act
We use diagrams, annotated examples, worksheet previews and genuine product screenshots when they explain a learning task or decision. Practical guides are checked for missing visual explanations before publication. Our graphics use the same restrained editorial style across the site; legal and support pages do not receive decorative images merely to fill space.
An original diagram explains the article’s evidence or exercise; it is not a product test. Fictional examples remain labelled. Screenshots retain their actual capture date and context, and vendor images are not presented as the publisher’s own test captures. We do not generate fake interfaces, certificates, product photographs or learning results.
Images need appropriate rights, descriptive alternatives and readable presentation. Complex diagrams have a nearby text explanation. We retain useful existing media and check new assets, captions and placement before release. A presentation change alone does not imply that a product was retested.
Resource assessment method
Resource assessments explain intended readers, costs, alternatives and limitations. Where the author has used a product, we distinguish that prior experience from the checks documented for the current article. A hands-on check records its date, task, environment and observed result. Public outlines and provider claims are labelled; they are not presented as completed paid-course testing or proof of learning or employment outcomes. Original exercises and calculations are identified separately from product test results.
Comparisons and recommendations
We compare relevant alternatives for the same reader task, explaining plan differences, full costs, useful free options and the limits of the evidence. Recommendations identify who an option suits and why. We do not rank products by commission or imply that a larger catalogue proves better learning.
Measurements and experience
Personal observations must come from documented author experience. Assistant-run checks, third-party research and provider specifications are identified separately. We report the source, date and relevant conditions of consequential measurements and explain the assumptions behind cost calculations. A public-page inspection is not a completed paid-course test.
Where personal experience is unavailable, we use clearly framed editorial analysis. We do not invent timings, test durations, success rates or learner outcomes. Original exercises illustrate an idea; they are not presented as validated interventions.
Commercial relationships and links
Recommendations follow the learning task and the evidence. No payment buys a ranking or positive conclusion. Affiliate placements are currently paused while approval, eligibility and destinations are checked. If activated, relevant pages will disclose the relationship before commercial links. Compensation does not determine the verdict.
Complete the learning and buying decision
Reviews explain who an option suits, relevant age or learner constraints, drawbacks, closest alternatives and when free or cheaper access is sufficient. We compare equivalent plans and billing periods, and identify uncertainty that could change a recommendation. Original suitability tables and practical examples are editorial frameworks, not validated assessments of children or learning outcomes.
We strengthen an existing page when a minor query is part of the same decision. We do not create separate pages for every keyword variation or promise search rankings or AI citations.