Editorial Independence Policy

1. What "Editorial Independence" Means Here

StudyVerdict is both a consumer review platform and an editorial publisher. We exercise editorial judgment in two contexts:

1. Moderation decisions — whether a submitted review is published, held, rejected, or shadow-published.
2. Content decisions — which Best-of guides we produce, which providers we include in subject hub pages, and how we write editorial copy.

"Editorial independence" means that both of these are governed by published criteria and made by human editors without interference from commercial relationships. A paying subscriber cannot instruct us on either.

2. Moderation Criteria

Every submitted review is evaluated against the following criteria, in order:

2.1 Authenticity

The reviewer must have personally used and paid for the service they are reviewing. Signals we use to assess authenticity: educational email domain verification, IP/device cluster detection (to identify coordinated campaigns), order-proof attachment (optional but given higher trust weight), and AI risk scoring.

2.2 Community Guidelines Compliance

Reviews must comply with our published Community Guidelines. The key prohibitions are: false statements of fact presented as true, personal identifying information about third parties, undisclosed incentivised opinions, competitor promotion, and content that violates Indian law.

2.3 AI Risk Scoring

Every review receives an AI risk score (0–100) from our moderation pipeline:

• 0–29: Auto-published (standard queue).
• 30–69: Queued for human review within 4 hours.
• 70–100: Held for senior editor review; not published until cleared.

The AI score is advisory, not final. A human editor can override the score in either direction. The AI model used and the risk thresholds are published in our Methodology.

2.4 What Does Not Affect Moderation

The following factors have zero weight in any moderation decision:

• Whether the reviewed provider is a paying subscriber
• Whether the provider has complained about this reviewer or this review
• The rating direction (negative reviews are not held to a higher standard)
• The reviewer's identity (all reviewers are anonymous handles)
• Whether the review could hurt a commercially important provider

3. Review Removal Policy

A published review can be removed only in the following circumstances:

1. Guideline violation discovered post-publication: New evidence emerges that the review violates our guidelines (e.g., we discover the reviewer was incentivised, or the review contains fabricated claims that were not detectable during original moderation).
2. Legal obligation: A valid court order, or a valid takedown notice under the IT Act / IT Rules that we are legally required to act on.
3. Reviewer retraction: The original reviewer requests removal of their own review via the signed-in account that posted it.
4. Platform shutdown: If StudyVerdict ceases to operate.

What is not a valid removal reason:

• A provider claiming the review is false without substantiating evidence
• A provider threatening legal action without producing a court order
• Commercial pressure of any kind
• The review being negative

Every removal is logged in the audit trail with the reason recorded. Providers are notified of the outcome of any dispute they initiate, but are not notified of the reviewer's identity under any circumstances.

4. Rating Weighting Logic

Aggregate ratings are computed as follows:

• Overall rating: Unweighted arithmetic mean of all published reviews' overall rating field (1–5 scale).
• Sub-scores (Quality, On-Time, Communication, Plagiarism-Free, Value): Unweighted arithmetic means of each sub-score across all published reviews.
• No decay weighting: Older reviews do not receive lower weight than recent reviews. We believe a service's history matters.
• No Bayesian adjustment: We do not apply a Bayesian prior or minimum review count threshold to "smooth" ratings toward a global mean. A provider with one 5-star review has a 5.0 rating until more reviews arrive.
• Shadow-published reviews: Reviews marked SHADOW_PUBLISHED are visible only to the reviewer; they are excluded from aggregate calculations.

If we ever change the weighting methodology, we will publish a notice on this page and in the audit log before the change takes effect.

5. Editorial Content — Best-of Guides and Subject Hubs

Best-of articles and subject hub pages are produced by StudyVerdict editors. The criteria for inclusion are:

• Minimum review count threshold (varies by article, stated in each article)
• Aggregate rating above the threshold (stated in each article)
• No active suspension or deactivation
• No open moderation flags for coordinated review manipulation

Providers on paid plans gain discoverability benefits (subject hub listings, Best-of inclusion where eligible) but cannot buy inclusion if they don't meet the editorial criteria above. A provider on the free plan who meets the editorial criteria will appear in Best-of articles.

6. Who Makes Editorial Decisions

Moderation decisions are made by:

1. AI pipeline (automated): For low-risk reviews (score 0–29).
2. Moderation team (human): For reviews scoring 30–69. Moderators are not the same individuals responsible for sales or commercial relationships.
3. Senior editor (human): For high-risk reviews (70+), appeals, and provider dispute cases.

No one with a financial interest in a specific provider's listing outcome participates in the moderation decision for that provider. If a conflict exists, the review is escalated to an independent editor.

7. Appeal Process

7.1 Reviewer Appeals (Review Rejected)

If your submitted review was rejected and you believe this was incorrect:

1. Sign in to your account at /dashboard.
2. Find the rejected review and click "Appeal moderation decision".
3. Provide evidence that the review meets our guidelines (e.g., order confirmation, payment receipt, or clarification of flagged content).
4. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor within 7 days.
5. The decision is final after one appeal round.

7.2 Provider Disputes (Published Review)

If you are a provider and believe a published review about your service violates our guidelines:

1. Submit a formal dispute to grievance@studyverdict.com with the subject line "Review Dispute — [your domain]".
2. State specifically which guideline you believe the review violates. Vague complaints ("this review is unfair") will be closed without action.
3. Provide evidence where available.
4. We will acknowledge within 72 hours and provide a substantive response within 14 days.
5. If the dispute is upheld, the review is removed or corrected. If it is rejected, we will explain why. The reviewer is not identified to the disputing provider under any circumstances.

8. Contact

For editorial concerns: editorial@studyverdict.com
For provider disputes: grievance@studyverdict.com
For legal notices: legal@studyverdict.com