Editorial standards
Editorial guidelines
How RoleClimb separates evidence, advice, personal experience and commercial incentives.
The key point
The standard is a clear answer with traceable facts, honest limits and a useful next step. Authority must come from the work shown—not from invented authors, badges or claims of testing.
A small publisher, not an invented expert panel
RoleClimb is owner-operated. Content can be prepared with AI assistance, and Daniel Loktionov is responsible for publishing it. We do not claim that every article has been independently reviewed by a recruiter, lawyer or career counselor.
An article should tell the reader what kind of work supports it: research, a documented test, an interview or a clearly labeled example. “Reviewed by” and “tested by” credits require real review or test work.
Evidence and attribution
Use original sources for factual claims where possible: an employer's application instructions, a product's documentation, or an official public resource. Name the source and link close to the relevant claim or in a clearly connected source list.
Keep a source's scope intact. A limitation described by one ATS provider is not automatically a limitation of all ATS software. An opinion from one employee is not a company policy. An advertised success statistic must not become our own verified result.
Where information is incomplete, say what remains unknown. Do not invent hiring odds, average processing times, review counts, customer results or professional credentials.
How AI is used
AI may help organize research, generate draft explanations, suggest examples and check writing. It is not a source of evidence about a company's current hiring process or a service's price.
The starter guides carry an AI-assisted, source-based notice. Their examples are illustrations, not reports of interviews or employment outcomes. Readers should verify employer-specific instructions with the employer.
Using Reddit, forums and employee experiences
Future employer guides may use public discussions to explain what some applicants or workers report. Summaries must preserve disagreements and distinguish a store, location, role or period from the whole company.
Do not fabricate quotes or combine unrelated comments into a made-up person. Short quotations need attribution. Personal details should be omitted when they are unnecessary to the reader's decision. A pattern in a small, self-selected sample must not be presented as a survey of all workers.
Examples that help without misleading
A sample resume bullet, interview response or outreach message should teach a structure. Mark fictional examples clearly and ask readers to replace the details with their own facts. Do not suggest inventing experience, copying someone else's achievements or secretly receiving answers during an interview.
Commercial influence and relevance
RoleClimb can earn through disclosed referral links. That incentive must not justify omitting a material disadvantage or presenting an untested product as proven. A reader should understand why a recommendation fits the task and when a simpler alternative is enough.
Sponsored placement must be distinguished from editorial comparison. See how links work and our evaluation method.
Corrections and updates
To report an error, send the page URL, the disputed detail and a source through Contact. Do not include identity documents or private employer correspondence that you do not have permission to share.
For a material correction, explain what changed on the affected page. A minor typo does not require a new publication date. A provider's disagreement alone is not grounds to remove a supported criticism.
Something needs correcting? Send the page URL and the detail we should check.