Editorial Standards

Sourcing and verification

Every factual claim on MobileTechWorld should be traceable to a primary source: a manufacturer announcement or specification sheet, a regulator filing (Ofcom, the CMA, the ICO), a Companies House record, a court or tribunal document, a published industry test, our own hands-on testing, or our own on-record reporting. Where a claim is our editorial judgement rather than a fact, we say so in plain language.

We verify before we publish. Where a figure matters to a buying or safety decision — a price, a charging speed, a coverage percentage, a contract term, a battery rating — we check it against the original source rather than repeating another outlet's number. When we quote a person or company, we link to where they actually said it. We do not treat a rival publication's report as a primary source; we trace it back to its origin and credit the originator.

Where we cannot verify a claim, we either leave it out or label it clearly as unconfirmed, attributing it to whoever made it. We would rather publish less than publish something we cannot stand behind.

Accuracy and fact-checking

Articles are checked by the editor whose byline appears on the piece before publication, against the sources cited in the draft. Prices, specifications, availability and contract terms are the highest-risk facts on a consumer-technology site, so they get the closest scrutiny — and, because they change, our buying guides timestamp when each price or detail was last checked.

Accuracy continues after publication. We monitor reader feedback, manufacturer updates and regulator decisions, and we update live articles when the facts move. Where a change materially affects a reader's understanding or a recommendation, we mark the update rather than editing silently. The detail of how we handle mistakes is set out in our corrections policy.

How we research and test

Hands-on claims are only ever made when they are true. If an article says we tested, used, trialled or reviewed a product, a member of the team has had that product in hand and the byline reflects it. Where a piece is built from official specifications, regulator data, market checks or desk analysis, it is described that way — never dressed up as a hands-on review.

Phones and devices. When we have a unit, we benchmark real-world battery life over multi-day use on the UK networks readers actually use, test camera output in the lighting British weather actually delivers, and measure charging against the UK plug and adapter most buyers will own — not idealised lab conditions.

Networks and broadband. Coverage and pricing articles draw on Ofcom open data, operators' own published coverage maps, and our own speed readings on UK SIMs where possible. We compare broadband on the price a customer actually pays — in-contract, out-of-contract, the mid-contract uplift, equipment and activation fees — not the headline rate.

AI tools. We state which model, which subscription tier, which platform (iOS, Android, web, Windows or Mac) and which UK region we evaluated, and we run the same prompts across competing tools in one session so comparisons are defensible.

Who writes for us and their expertise

MobileTechWorld is written by a named, UK-based editorial team. There are no anonymous bylines and no ghost-written guest posts passed off as staff work. Every byline links to a public author page with a photo, the editor's background and beat, and a direct contact route.

Our editors are specialists by desk: a news desk that reads launches and regulator decisions for what they mean to the British buyer; a reviews desk that leads long-form product verdicts and always identifies who a product is wrong for; a buying-guides desk focused on making the decision easier rather than padding posts with affiliate filler; and a how-to desk producing UK-specific, step-by-step tutorials. You can read each editor's background on the About page and on their individual author pages.

Independence from advertisers and affiliates

Editorial decisions are made by our editors, not by our commercial partners. Advertisers and affiliate programmes do not decide what we cover, how we cover it, the score we give, or where a product ranks in a guide. No partner sees an article before publication for approval, and no partner can buy a better verdict.

Some of our links earn a commission if a reader buys through them, and that revenue helps fund the site — but it never changes the recommendation. We will name the best product even when it earns us nothing, and we will advise against a product even when an affiliate would pay us for the sale. Commercial content, when we run it, is clearly and prominently labelled so you always know what you are reading. The mechanics are set out in our affiliate disclosure.

How we write and edit

MobileTechWorld is written by people. Our editors research each story from primary sources, write it themselves, and check it against those sources before it goes live. Every piece carries the byline of a real, named journalist who is accountable for it.

Every article is reviewed, edited and fact-checked against its sources and signed off by the named editor whose byline appears on it. We do not fabricate quotes or test results, and we do not pass off invented or stock imagery as real product photography — where we show a product, we use genuine manufacturer or first-hand images, credited.

How we are funded

MobileTechWorld is funded by display advertising and by affiliate commissions earned when readers buy through some of our links. We do not charge readers, and we do not put journalism behind a paywall.

We keep the commercial and editorial sides separate. Funding pays for the team and the running of the site; it does not buy influence over our verdicts. Where a relationship could reasonably be seen to create a conflict — a loan unit, a vendor-provided account, a free trial — we disclose it within the relevant article.

Corrections and contact

When we identify a material factual error, we correct it and, where it matters to the reader, we say so. To flag an error, email [email protected] with the article URL, the statement you believe is wrong and the evidence we should review. Full detail is in our corrections policy.

For anything else editorial — tips, story ideas, feedback on these standards — email [email protected].