Scope
This policy applies to everything published on BestERPinKuwait.com: ERP reviews, comparisons, rankings, sector guides, buyer guides and tool outputs.
How claims are classified
Claim types used throughout the site
| Type | What it means | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Fact | Objectively verifiable | Must cite at least one source with an access date |
| Editorial assessment | Our reasoned judgement from the methodology | Must be derivable from published criteria or stated experience |
| Opinion | A stated viewpoint | Must be labelled as such and never presented as a finding |
These labels appear next to statements on review and comparison pages. This is deliberate friction: it makes it harder for marketing language to pass as analysis, including our own writing.
Sourcing
- Vendor documentation and published pricing pages are preferred over secondary reporting
- Every source records its publisher, type and the date an editor last checked it
- First-hand product verification is recorded as a distinct source type so you can see which claims we checked ourselves
- Where a vendor does not publish something — pricing, most commonly — we say so rather than estimating
- Where we have not assessed a capability, it is marked 'not assessed' rather than guessed
Writing about vendors
Every product covered here belongs to a company with a commercial interest in how it is described, and several have asked us to change coverage. The following rules exist so that those conversations never decide what is published.
Rules for vendor coverage
- Strengths are stated as fully as limitations, and are listed first
- No claim about a competitor is published without a source or an explicit editorial-assessment label
- Criticism must be specific and evidenced; 'it is not very good' is not publishable
- Where a system is the better answer for a buyer profile, we say so plainly
- Comparison takeaways must be defensible to that vendor's own engineers
- We do not publish claims about a vendor's customers, pricing or internal practices we cannot source
- A vendor may correct a factual error; no vendor may negotiate a score or an assessment
Independence
- We are not owned by, funded by or affiliated with any ERP vendor
- We do not resell, implement or take referral fees for any system we cover
- We accept no advertising, sponsorship, affiliate revenue or paid placement
- The same methodology, criteria and weights apply to every system, with no exceptions
- No vendor sees a review, a score or a comparison before it is published
Structured data
We do not emit aggregate ratings, review counts, awards or testimonials in structured data, because we do not collect user reviews and inventing them would be fraudulent. Structured data on this site reflects only what is visible on the page.
Freshness and review
Every page records when it was published, last updated and last fact-checked, and carries a review interval — 180 days by default and shorter for volatile topics such as pricing. When the interval elapses, a "review due" marker appears in the page byline and the page enters the re-checking queue.
Corrections
Errors get corrected, including ones a vendor would rather we left alone. Report anything you believe is wrong through the contact form and we will check it against the source. Substantive corrections update the page's last-updated date; where a correction changes a score or a conclusion, we note that on the page.
Advertising and paid placement
There is none. No vendor can pay to appear, to rank higher, or to have criticism removed. Readers who want help applying the research can request an ERP assessment from our team, and that work is the same whichever system it points to — which only works if the research is worth reading in the first place.
Spotted something wrong, or want to challenge an assessment? We would rather hear it.
Contact us