Our editorial standards
These principles explain how we endeavour to maintain good standards of practice in writing about issues in – and sharing information about – higher education, and the organisations and individuals in and around it.
Good faith, argued well
We presume good faith on the part of policy actors, particularly those operating in the HE sector. Disagreement with policy approach, language or methodology is standard and acceptable, even encouraged. Ad hominem attacks are not. We require authors making an argument to engage critically with contrary perspectives in good faith, and consider the evidence for the alternatives.
Evidence in the service of argument
Evidence is a broad concept – professional or lived experience and accumulated qualitative analysis count alongside quantitative data. Where we or our authors cover highly specialist ground such as law or medicine, we are clear about the limits of our knowledge.
Fair quotation
When quoting material in the public domain we ensure the quote accurately represents the meaning a reasonable person would derive from it, including the context in which the statement was made.
Solicited comment
When we ask an individual or an organisational spokesperson for comment, we give enough context for them to understand our intention in writing the article. Where quotes come from an interview or verbal comment, we check them for accuracy ahead of publication.
Right of reply
When we write articles strongly critical of an organisational policy or agenda, we offer that organisation the opportunity to comment and to add context that helps us represent the nuance of the situation.
Individuals and institutions
We only rarely report on individuals or individual institutions, and only where we believe there are implications for the wider sector. Content produced as part of a commercial partnership is clearly indicated, and personal material interests are declared.
When we use data
Where we are using data to support an argument, we follow accepted good practice in presenting it:
- We link to the source data, or a report describing it in detail if it is not public.
- For survey data, we specify the sample size and how the sample was recruited.
- If we have weighted or otherwise statistically treated the data, we say what we did and why.
- When discussing a subgroup, we tell you how many people or things are in it.
- We endeavour to comment on the limitations of the data.
If you think we have fallen short
If you want to raise a complaint about something we have published, direct it to us in the first instance and tell us what you are not happy about. We will review the issue, talk to the team member or author in question, and do our best to correct any inaccuracies as quickly as possible or offer right of reply if appropriate.
Raise it with the team →