Our editorial approach
How we write our guides.
Useful advice, clear sources,
honest recommendations.
We write for university students making real decisions about their time, tools and studies. Here is what you can expect from the team behind LectureParse.
Student-first.
Useful whether or not you use our product.
Evidence-led.
Sources you can follow. Limitations made clear.
Open about our interests.
Our role and the basis of our recommendations.
A clear disclosure
We build LectureParse.
That doesn’t make it the right recommendation for every task. When we recommend it, we disclose our relationship and explain where it fits. Sometimes the useful answer is another tool, a university resource or no new purchase at all.
Start with a student question
A guide should be useful even if you never use LectureParse. We focus on practical decisions: choosing a tool, understanding a topic or finding a better way to study. Recommendations should explain who an option suits—and when it is not the right fit.
Show where the information comes from
We link to original product documentation for features and to research for evidence claims. We distinguish those facts from our editorial judgments. Unless an article describes an actual test and its method, it is not a hands-on benchmark or an independent product review.
Be open about AI assistance
AI tools may assist with research, drafting and editing. Their output is not evidence: factual claims should be checked against original sources. Illustrative examples are labelled, and we do not present generated stories as real student experiences or invented tests as results.
Keep updates meaningful
Publication dates show when a guide first appeared. Updated dates mark substantive revisions; sources-checked dates mark a review of linked information. A visual redesign alone does not make an article newly researched. Prices, features and eligibility can change after a review.
Support learning, not shortcuts around it
AI explanations and practice questions can be wrong. We encourage checking sources and practising independently. Your institution and assessment determine which uses of AI are permitted and what you need to disclose; our guides do not replace those rules.
Spotted something wrong?
Send us the article URL, the detail that needs attention and a supporting source if you have one. That gives us a specific issue to review.