Editorial standards
These are the standards for new and revised Schkovl articles. They are not a claim that every historical article has already completed an evidence review.
A named byline identifies the person credited for that article. Company-authored work carries the Schkovl name. A reviewer is not automatically an author. Personal biographies describe the author's role; they do not imply independent certification of every topic discussed.
Material factual claims should have a source that supports their actual scope. Recommendations, illustrative calculations and hypotheses should be distinguished from measured results. A number without supporting evidence should be removed or corrected, not presented as an industry benchmark.
A study should identify its question, dates, sample, method, outcomes, exclusions and limitations. A technical audit score is not a search ranking or a revenue result. Related-party relationships and other material conflicts should be disclosed with the evidence.
AI tools may assist drafting, analysis or coding. Their output is not a source of evidence on its own. Human authors remain responsible for checking claims and calculations. Material use of generated or synthetic data should be disclosed in the affected work.
Original publication dates are retained. Substantive corrections carry an update date and a note describing the change. Platform behavior and prices can change; check the linked source before relying on a historical description.
Email build@schkovl.com with the article URL, the passage and supporting evidence. When we substantiate a material error, we correct the affected page and check known syndicated copies.
Meet Dillon Kovljenic, read about Schkovl or see how these standards are applied in evidence and measurement.
These standards were last reviewed on .
