Editorial policy
This site asks to be trusted on technical questions where being wrong is expensive. That trust has to rest on something you can read, so here is how the work is actually done.
Who writes here
Every article is written and reviewed by practising specialists – people currently working in offshore survey, positioning, hydrography, subsea operations, GIS and metocean, with field experience measured in decades rather than press releases. Articles are published under editorial panels rather than personal names.
Why the panels are anonymous
Not modesty – employment. Our contributors hold positions in an industry where publicly criticising a standard, a vendor or a common contracting practice can carry professional consequences. Anonymity is what buys the frankness: an author who cannot be pressured by an employer or a supplier can say what the data supports, in full.
Where a named expert has reviewed an article and consented to sign it, that name appears on the article as a review plaque. A name on this site means that specific person read that specific piece and stands behind it – names are never decorative.
How claims are verified
- Standards are read in the original. When an article states what an IMCA, IHO, IOGP or DNV document requires, that claim is checked against the issuing body's actual text – not against a summary, a vendor slide or another blog.
- Specifics are sourced or dropped. Document numbers, dates, figures and named incidents must trace to a primary source. Where a specific cannot be verified, we describe the practice generically rather than dress up a guess as a citation.
- Adversarial review before publication. Drafts are challenged on technical substance – by a reviewer whose job is to find what is wrong with the piece, not to approve it.
Independence
No vendor pays for coverage, no manufacturer reviews drafts, and no equipment named in an article has sponsored it. Where the site earns money – training, certification, advisory – that is disclosed openly on the pages that sell it, and it never shapes the analysis. An article that flatters nobody is the product.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we fix the article and note the change. If you believe a published claim is incorrect, write to us via the contact page with the article and the source that contradicts it. A challenge backed by a primary source is the most useful mail we receive.