Editorial standards
Clear sourcing, proportionate claims, and useful context for education readers.
Use evidence close to the story
Our sourcing priorities are original studies, official documents, public data, and direct announcements. Independent reporting helps establish context and identify unanswered questions. Links appear beside the claims they support so readers can inspect the evidence.
Distinguish findings from interpretation
A study finding, an institution’s claim, and our analysis carry different kinds of evidence. Coverage should make those distinctions clear, identify important limits, and avoid presenting a small study or an early result as settled consensus.
Make the practical details explicit
We aim to explain who is affected and where a development applies. For tools and opportunities, relevant details include access, eligibility, cost, rollout dates, and deadlines. Availability and rules can change; the linked official source is the place to confirm the current terms.
Keep packaging faithful to the evidence
Headlines and summaries should reflect the article’s verified scope. Product announcements require context about the reader’s problem, implementation, and evidence for the claims being made. Coverage should avoid invented quotations, experiences, or endorsements.
Updates and corrections
Articles display their publication date. When a published article is revised, an updated date appears alongside it. Material corrections should explain the changed claim in the article; continuing developments may be covered in a linked follow-up.
Learn more about EduHub or explore the news archive.