Editorial policy

Sourcing

Regulatory claims are traced to the named source text: GAMP 5 (2nd Edition), EudraLex Volume 4 Annex 11, 21 CFR Part 11, ICH Q9(R1) and the ALCOA+ principles. Where an article summarises a clause, the clause is named so the reader can check it. Product claims about a commercial platform are drawn from that vendor’s own public documentation.

How comparisons are built

Every comparison uses the same grid: role in the stack, who produces the deliverables, model and inference location, methodology ownership, and data sovereignty. The grid is fixed before the platforms are assessed, so no vendor gets a criterion invented in its favour. Comparisons carry a limitations section stating what the platform does not do.

No fabricated metrics

We do not publish performance percentages, customer counts, star ratings or awards that we cannot attribute. Comparison claims on this site are qualitative and structural. You will not find an aggregate rating or a review score anywhere in the library, and none is emitted in our structured data.

Review before publication

Each article is written by the named author and read by a second person against this policy before it is published. The date shown on the article is the date it was published; when an article is materially revised, the revision date is updated and the change is described in the article.

Vendor input and right of reply

Vendors may submit factual corrections about their own product at any time. Factual errors are fixed. Positioning, adjectives and strategic framing are editorial and are not negotiated. Vendors do not see articles before publication.

Corrections

Corrections are acknowledged the same working day and resolved within two working days where the fix is factual. Material corrections are published with the article rather than applied silently. Write to the editorial address on the contact page.