The principle
Before publishing a material finding about a provider, we give that provider a reasonable opportunity to respond. This is a basic fairness requirement and it is not negotiable.
What we send
Where a review contains a claim that could reasonably damage a provider, we send a summary of the claim and the evidence behind it before publication, and invite a factual correction. We do not share our unpublished editorial conclusions, our scoring intentions, or the internal notes behind a research process.
What we accept
Correct facts. New evidence that changes the factual picture. A source we did not have. A clarification of something that is ambiguous in our description.
What we do not accept
A demand to remove an accurate finding. A demand to change a conclusion. An offer of payment in exchange for a different treatment. A complaint that our evidence is unflattering, where the evidence is what it is.
Where a provider disputes a conclusion, we will consider the factual argument on its merits. If the argument does not change the evidence, the finding stands and the dispute is noted on the page.
Our own right of reply
If a review concludes that a provider is strong in a particular area, that provider has an equal right to have an accurate correction made if a reader points out that the strength does not exist. Our policy is symmetrical, and it is applied symmetrically.
Where to respond
Send right of reply responses to the editorial team via the contact page, marked for the attention of the editor. A commercial contact or a sponsorship team cannot act on a right of reply, and a sponsorship conversation will never change an editorial finding.