ScopePress.uk is operated by Rock Bay Media Ltd., a private company limited by shares registered in Gibraltar (company number 128512), with registered office at Suite 21, Portland House, Glacis Road, Gibraltar GX11 1AA. The publication’s editorial operations are led by Editor-in-Chief Nathan Brooks, who oversees all technology reporting standards, publication decisions and content integrity. Our reporting on consumer tech, gadgets, software, cybersecurity, gaming and digital culture is grounded in rigorous verification, clear labelling and a commitment to serving UK audiences with trustworthy journalism.
Who is responsible for ScopePress.uk’s technology reporting standards?
Editor-in-Chief Nathan Brooks holds ultimate responsibility for the technology reporting standards at ScopePress.uk, working closely with the standards and fact‑checking desk led by Ruth Donovan. Ruth Donovan reviews sensitive stories, oversees corrections and ensures every piece of editorial content meets our verification and ethics requirements. All named editorial staff — including Managing Editor Olivia Reid, Devices & Reviews Editor Samuel Hart, AI & Software Correspondent Aisha Khan, and Consumer & Gaming Correspondent George Pemberton — are individually accountable for the accuracy of their own reports.
How does ScopePress.uk verify product announcements, specifications, pricing and availability?
ScopePress.uk verifies product announcements against multiple primary sources, including official press releases, manufacturer documentation, regulatory filings and hands‑on inspection of review samples. When pricing and availability are announced, we confirm them directly with the vendor or via authorised retailer listings, noting the date and currency. If a detail comes from a non‑official source, we clearly attribute that source and, where possible, seek independent confirmation from a second party. We never publish unverified specifications as fact.
How does ScopePress.uk distinguish between rumours, leaks and confirmed information?
ScopePress.uk labels all information as either a rumour, a leak or confirmed, based on the reliability and nature of the sources. Rumours are attributed to anonymous or non‑primary sources and clearly caveated; leaks are attributed to specific documents or insider reports, with a note that the information has not been officially confirmed. Confirmed information is backed by official channels or multiple independent verifications. We never present speculation as news, and every article that relies on unconfirmed material includes a distinct notice such as “unconfirmed” or “as yet unverified.”
What are ScopePress.uk’s standards for reporting security vulnerabilities?
ScopePress.uk follows responsible disclosure principles when reporting on security vulnerabilities. We will never publish instructions or code that could enable harm, and we coordinate with affected vendors before publishing details of a vulnerability, whenever feasible. Our reports aim to inform readers about the risk and the vendor’s response without providing a blueprint for exploitation. Exceptions are considered only where the vulnerability is already publicly exploited and the public interest in warning users outweighs the risk of enabling further harm.
What attribution does ScopePress.uk require for company statements and filings?
ScopePress.uk attributes every company statement, regulatory filing and primary document to its original source, including the name of the organisation, the date and the specific document reference. Quotes from executives are attributed with their full name, title and the context in which the statement was made. We do not paraphrase official filings without linking to or citing the document, and we never fabricate or alter the wording of direct quotations.
When does ScopePress.uk require hands‑on testing versus press‑release reporting?
ScopePress.uk requires hands‑on testing for all product reviews, buying guides and any article that evaluates a device’s performance, build quality or user experience. News articles based on press releases or official announcements are clearly labelled as such and do not claim independent testing. For hands‑on testing, our Devices & Reviews Editor Samuel Hart or a designated reviewer must physically use the product and document their findings. If a news item later receives a full review, that review is marked separately and supersedes the initial press‑release report.
How does the standards desk review sensitive technology stories?
The standards desk, led by Ruth Donovan, reviews all sensitive technology stories — including those involving security vulnerabilities, data breaches, regulatory investigations or controversial product claims — before publication. The desk checks factual accuracy, source attribution, potential harm and compliance with our editorial policy. For more detail on how we verify claims, see our fact‑checking policy and the list of editors on our team page. Our approach to sourcing is outlined in the Sources & Standards document.
Our commitments
- We verify all product specifications, pricing and availability against official or independently confirmable sources before publication.
- We clearly label rumour, leak and confirmed information, never presenting speculation as fact.
- We report security vulnerabilities responsibly, never publishing harmful instructions, and coordinate with vendors where possible.
- We attribute every company statement, filing and direct quote to its original source with date and context.
- We require hands‑on testing for all product reviews and clearly distinguish press‑release reporting from tested editorial content.