Editorial Policy

Last updated: 27 April 2026

This page sets out the rules UKRankings follows when reviewing and recommending UK essay, dissertation and coursework writing services. It is intended to be the document a reader, regulator or Google quality rater can use to verify how we work.

1. Independence

Editorial scoring decisions are taken by the testing reviewer using the rubric in How We Test, and signed off by the editorial lead. No one outside the editorial team has authority to change a score, including: the commercial team that runs UKRankings affiliate partnerships; Projectsdeal.co.uk, EasyMarks.co.uk and TopUKWriters.co.uk, which share parent-group ownership with UKRankings; and any individual provider being reviewed.

If a commercial partner attempts to influence scoring, the editorial lead is required to log the attempt on the change log of the review in question and on this page. We will not anonymise such logs.

2. Disclosure

What we disclose

• That UKRankings shares ownership with Projectsdeal.co.uk, EasyMarks.co.uk and TopUKWriters.co.uk — on every page (footer disclosure block).
• Where individual reviews contain affiliate links — on the same review page (per-page disclosure).
• Where Projectsdeal, EasyMarks or TopUKWriters is recommended in a review's verdict — every recommendation includes a "we share ownership with this provider" line within the verdict itself.
• The dates of testing, the brief tested, the reviewer who tested, and the rubric version applied — on every review.

What we do not disclose

Names of student or academic clients of any provider, including those who supply us with experiences when challenging a review. The identity of mystery-shopper accounts we use to place orders, for as long as those accounts are active.

3. Conflict of interest handling

Recognising that UKRankings recommending Projectsdeal, EasyMarks or TopUKWriters is itself a conflict of interest:

• Every review where one of these three brands appears in a top-3 position must be signed off by an editorial lead who is not also reviewing for that brand in that period.
• Where one of these brands scores below another provider on our published rubric, we publish the lower-scoring review even if it costs commercial revenue.
• We do not delete or unpublish negative reviews of these three brands; instead we follow the correction and re-test process below.

4. Corrections

When we make a mistake we publish a correction at the top of the affected review, dated, with what we got wrong and what changed. We do not silently edit historical reviews. The pre-correction version is preserved in the change log on the review. Where a correction materially changes the verdict, the review's headline rating is updated and the change log records the previous rating.

To request a correction, email editorial@ukrankings.co.uk with the URL, what you believe is wrong, and any evidence you can share. We acknowledge within five working days, investigate, and publish a correction or a reasoned explanation of why we are leaving the review unchanged within thirty days.

5. Re-tests

Each top-50 reviewed provider is re-tested annually with a smaller spot-check every six months. We schedule unscheduled re-tests when reader-reported experiences materially conflict with our published score, when a provider materially changes pricing or ownership, or when new evidence emerges (regulator action, change in plagiarism-detection findings, news coverage). The result of any unscheduled re-test is published within thirty days of the test order being completed, regardless of whether it raises or lowers the previous score.

6. Use of AI

We may use AI tools to help draft sections of a review or summarise long inputs. Final scoring, the verdict, and the published copy are reviewed and signed off by a human editorial lead. We do not let AI tools generate scores or verdicts.

We test every provider's delivered work with multiple AI-detection services and publish the AI score on the review. Providers that knowingly deliver AI-generated work while marketing themselves as "100% human" are noted in the verdict. UK universities now use AI detection at scale; this is a category-level concern that students should weight when ordering.

7. Privacy

We follow UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Reader emails to editorial@ukrankings.co.uk are processed for editorial review and not used for marketing.

8. Complaints to a third party

If after our internal correction process you believe a review of yours or your business is materially misleading, you may complain to: the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) if we are a member at the date of the complaint; the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) if your complaint relates to an affiliate disclosure or marketing claim on the site. We will cooperate fully with any such complaint.

9. Sources we rely on

Where we cite a public review platform (Trustpilot, Sitejabber, Reviews.io, PissedConsumer, Google reviews) or a public-record source (Companies House, ASA adjudications, regulator findings, news coverage), the source is linked from the relevant review with a verification date. Source pages are linked using rel="nofollow noopener" as standard practice.

10. Change log for this policy

• 27 April 2026 — Updated to reflect the wider parent-group brand portfolio (Projectsdeal, EasyMarks, TopUKWriters); added section 9 on sources; clarified AI-use rules.