NationalReport.uk is committed to accuracy, transparency and editorial integrity. This policy sets out the principles and procedures we follow to verify claims before publication, our use of sources, how we handle uncertainty, and the steps we take when we get something wrong. It applies to all editorial content on our site, including news articles, analysis, features, and clearly labelled sponsored or partner content.
What we verify before publication
Before any editorial content is published, we verify all factual claims that are central to the story, especially those involving:
- Statistics, data and numerical claims
- Public policy, legislative or regulatory matters
- Healthcare, medical treatments, public health guidance
- Financial markets, economic indicators, household finances
- Technology, digital services, data security
- Legal proceedings, court rulings, regulatory decisions
Claims that are not central to the story – for example, background colour or widely known facts – are still checked for plausibility by the editor reviewing the piece, but may not undergo the same level of verification as core claims.
Source hierarchy
We rely on a clear hierarchy of sources, with primary sources preferred whenever possible. Our hierarchy, from most to least authoritative, is:
- Primary sources: official documents, legislation, court judgments, parliamentary records (Hansard), public datasets from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), government departments (gov.uk), and other official bodies.
- Official records and public data: statistics from ONS, NHS, DfE, DWP, HM Treasury, the Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility, and similar institutions.
- Expert commentary: statements from recognised experts or organisations where the source is clearly identified and credentials are relevant.
- Clearly attributed references: journalism, academic papers, think-tank reports, or other media where the original source is linked and the claim can be traced.
Wherever possible, we link directly to the source material. For a full explanation of our approach to sourcing, see our Sources & Standards page.
Verification workflow
Every article goes through a multi-stage verification process before publication:
- Writer – the journalist writing the piece is responsible for sourcing all factual claims, including linking to primary or secondary sources. They must note any uncertainty or gaps in evidence.
- Editor review – the section editor (Politics, Economy, Public Services, or the Managing Editor) reviews the article for factual accuracy, source quality, and completeness. They may ask the writer to provide additional sourcing.
- Standards desk – for content that involves sensitive claims (e.g., health risks, crime statistics, political allegations, financial data with public impact), the Standards & Fact-Checking Lead, Eleni Papadopoulos, performs additional checks. This may include consulting original datasets, cross-referencing multiple sources, or contacting relevant authorities.
All published editorial content is reviewed by a human editor before publication, regardless of any use of digital tools for research or formatting. For more on our editorial processes, see our Editorial Policy.
Handling uncertainty
When a claim cannot be fully verified – because the evidence is incomplete, contradictory, or the context makes certainty impossible – we do one of the following:
- Attribute – we clearly state the source of the claim (e.g., “according to a government spokesperson” or “the ONS estimates that…”) and make clear that the claim is not independently confirmed.
- Caveat – we include a note of caution, such as margin of error, methodological limitations, or the date the data was collected.
- Omit – if the claim cannot be sufficiently supported and is material to the story, we remove it from the article rather than risk misleading readers.
We never publish a claim we know to be false or likely to mislead.
Use of public datasets
We routinely use public datasets from official UK sources, including the Office for National Statistics (ONS), gov.uk, parliamentary records, the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions, and other government agencies. Where data is not from an official source, we make that clear and explain the basis for the figures. We always link to the original dataset when possible.
Corrections when we get it wrong
If we publish an error – whether of fact, omission, or misrepresentation – we correct it promptly and transparently. Our corrections process is set out in detail on our Corrections Policy page. In summary:
- Errors are corrected as soon as they are identified.
- The correction is clearly marked at the top or bottom of the article, with a note of what was changed and why.
- Significant errors may result in a full retraction and an explanation published separately.
- We maintain a corrections log, accessible on request.
Reader reports
We encourage readers to alert us to any factual inaccuracies they find in our content. Reports can be sent directly to factcheck@nationalreport.uk. Our Standards & Fact-Checking Lead, Eleni Papadopoulos, reviews all reports and responds within two working days. Where a correction is warranted, we follow our corrections process. You can also see our full team list for contact details of individual editors.
For any other editorial enquiries, please see our Editorial Policy or contact us via our contact page.