Mission and scope
Jotuno publishes explainers, guides, analysis, opinion and discovery content across technology, business, education, health, lifestyle, science and world affairs. Our aim is to help readers understand a subject, evaluate choices and locate useful organisations without disguising uncertainty or commercial influence.
Opinion pieces may take a clear position, but they should identify interpretation as interpretation and must not invent facts to support an argument.
How topics are selected
We prioritise relevance, reader value, public interest, explanatory potential and the ability to add useful context. Search interest may help us understand what readers are asking, but it does not justify publishing unsupported claims, repetitive pages or material created only to manipulate rankings.
Coverage decisions may also reflect developing news, recurring reader questions, contributor expertise and gaps in existing explanations.
Evidence and sourcing
Material factual claims should be supported by appropriate evidence. The strongest available source depends on the subject and may include official records, primary documents, peer-reviewed research, direct interviews, company filings or reporting from reputable organisations. Anonymous or secondary claims require additional caution.
Writers must not present a press release, marketing claim, social-media post or AI-generated statement as independent proof. Where evidence is incomplete, contested or developing, the article should say so.
Editorial independence
Editorial conclusions are not sold. Advertisers, directory customers, sponsors and partner organisations may purchase clearly described visibility, but payment does not provide the right to control unrelated reporting, suppress accurate criticism or obtain a guaranteed favourable conclusion.
Commercial content must be labelled in a way a reasonable reader can understand before relying on it.
Editorial tools and artificial intelligence
Editors and contributors may use digital tools for research organisation, transcription, language support, formatting, classification or ideation. Tool output is not a source and must not be treated as verified evidence. The person or editorial desk attached to a page remains accountable for checking the published result.
AI-generated quotations, experiences, credentials, sources, statistics or images must never be presented as real. Material use of synthetic media should be disclosed when its nature would affect a reader’s interpretation.
Conflicts, contributors and transparency
Contributors should disclose financial, professional or personal relationships that could reasonably affect their coverage. When a contributor writes about an organisation they founded, work for or advise, that relationship should be visible to readers.
Individual author profiles describe verified coverage and relevant public information. Editorial-desk bylines indicate collective development or substantial review, not an unnamed individual specialist.
Review and publication
Before publication, work should be reviewed for relevance, structure, factual consistency, sourcing expectations, potentially harmful claims, conflicts, originality and legal or ethical concerns proportionate to the topic. Health, financial, legal, safety and rapidly developing public-affairs claims require particular caution.
Publication does not make a page permanently correct. Editors may update context, improve explanations or correct mistakes as evidence develops.
Updates, corrections and accountability
Material factual errors should be corrected promptly and transparently under the Corrections Policy. Minor spelling, formatting and clarity changes that do not alter meaning may be made without a formal correction note.
Questions about an article can be submitted through the Contact page. Include the URL, exact passage and reliable supporting evidence so the issue can be assessed efficiently.