Editorial Standards

VapeBrief publishes concise articles in its own words, with links that allow readers to examine the underlying evidence. This page describes the approach used for the current collection.

Sources and dates

We prioritise legislation, regulators, public statistical releases, manufacturers’ documentation and event organisers. A manufacturer’s claim is attributed to the manufacturer; an organiser’s attendance figure is attributed to the organiser. We distinguish publication dates, data periods, announcement dates and implementation dates. A report of a proposal does not mean that it has become law.

Product coverage

A document-based product check is labelled as such. We do not invent hands-on experience, flavour judgements, battery endurance, safety testing or review scores. Specifications can vary by market and should be checked against the relevant original documentation. Editorial coverage is not a recommendation to start using nicotine.

Writing and images

Articles are written from the cited evidence rather than copied from another publication. Digital research and drafting tools may assist preparation. Linked sources support the facts; original writing does not make us the original discoverer of an announcement or dataset.

Photographs carry a credit and source link. File photographs are identified as such and do not imply attendance at an event. Manufacturer-provided product artwork is identified separately from a photograph. We do not present generated pictures as documentary evidence.

Commercial labels

The current collection contains no paid placements or affiliate purchase links. Any future sponsored item should be clearly labelled. A source link is not an endorsement.

Corrections

To query a fact, send the article URL and supporting evidence to support@vapebrief.com. Material corrections should explain what changed in the article and be listed on our Corrections page.