Policy details
- Version
- 1.0
- Effective date
- Last reviewed
- Next scheduled review
- Policy owner
- Associate Professor Charles Lo, CPA, PhD
- Team directory
- Meet the StockEducation team
What these standards cover
These standards apply to StockEducation articles, explainers, guides, tools, calculators, comparison pages and other indexable educational content. They set the minimum for evidence, authorship, review, commercial disclosure and post-publication care.
We write from Sydney, Australia for a US audience. When a claim concerns US markets, companies, securities or regulation, we use relevant US primary sources and identify the date or period the information covers.
Six editorial principles
Be useful before being persuasive
We explain the decision, concept or trade-off a reader is trying to understand. We do not use educational copy to manufacture urgency, promise returns or push a reader toward a transaction.
Make a person accountable
Published work should identify the people who wrote, edited or reviewed it when those roles were actually performed. A credential appears only after it has been verified and only where it is relevant to the work.
Separate fact, calculation and judgment
Factual claims need evidence. Derived figures show their inputs and method. Interpretation is labelled as analysis, and uncertainty or material limitations are stated instead of being smoothed away.
Use the strongest available source
We prefer regulators, government publications, official datasets, filings and company primary materials. Reputable reporting can add context, but educational sites, forums and AI output are not treated as authority for a financial claim.
Correct the record visibly
When a substantive error is confirmed, the page and its correction record are updated together. Material corrections are not hidden in routine copy edits, and the public ledger is not padded with cosmetic changes.
Keep editorial judgment independent
Revenue or commercial relationships cannot determine our conclusions, ratings, examples, evidence or explanatory order. If a page can generate commercial value, the relationship must be disclosed where a reader can see it before acting on the content.
People and accountability
Role labels describe work performed, not status. A “reviewed by” or “fact-checked by” credit appears only after that person has completed the stated work and their relevant credentials and biography have been verified.
- Writers are responsible for the draft, evidence trail and faithful representation of sources.
- Editors test clarity, structure, evidence and policy compliance.
- Specialist reviewers test claims within their documented area of competence.
- Approvers confirm the page is ready to publish and that required disclosures and checks are complete.
See how we publish for the full workflow and role definitions, or visit the StockEducation team directory and the individual profiles for Associate Professor Charles Lo, CPA, PhD and Felix La Spina.
Commercial independence
StockEducation is funded by its operator, Stock Education Publishing Pty Ltd. We do not currently receive revenue from brokers or investing platforms. If that changes, we will update our funding disclosure and identify relevant relationships on the affected page.
If affiliate links are introduced, our policy is to confine them to clearly identified comparison tools, disclose them near the top of the page and keep educational conclusions independent. A commercial relationship does not guarantee favourable coverage or inclusion.
Read the full funding and commercial disclosure.
How this policy must be evidenced
Policy language is not proof by itself. Each promise needs an operating record that a reader, editor or auditor can inspect.
| Promise | Evidence required on the live site | Where it appears |
|---|---|---|
| Human accountability | Named role, completion date and live biography for the person who performed the work | Byline block, revision history and page schema |
| Strong sourcing | Claim-level links to the underlying filing, regulator, dataset or original research | Beside the supported claim and in any source notes |
| Checked calculations | Source inputs, formula, period, units, assumptions and an independent recomputation | Calculation note or methodology section |
| Commercial independence | Current funding statement and page-specific disclosure before a commercial link | Funding policy and affected content page |
| Visible corrections | Central correction record, affected-page notice, dates and permanent export | Corrections log and corrected page |
| Ongoing review | Completed checklist, outcome, reviewer and genuine timestamp | Policy summary, revision record and internal audit trail |
If the evidence does not exist, the associated claim is not published. See how we publish for risk tiers and the required review level.
Keeping these standards current
These standards are reviewed when our products, funding, contributors or editorial controls materially change. Substantive policy changes should be dated and explained in a revision history when the page is connected to the production publishing system.
If something on the site appears inaccurate, outdated or inconsistent with these standards, use the “Spotted an error?” control on any page or read our corrections policy and log.
Revision history
This table records material changes to this policy.
| Version | Date | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 31 July 2026 | Initial editorial standards, evidence mapping and accountability policy. |
