HRTechSaaS is an independent publication. The trust of our readers is the only thing that makes this worth building. These standards describe exactly how we produce content, how we handle errors, and where commercial relationships do — and do not — influence what we publish.
How We Decide What to Cover
We cover HR technology topics based on:
- Reader relevance — Does this help HR practitioners make better decisions?
- Market significance — Is this product, trend, or development meaningfully shaping the HR tech landscape?
- Evergreen value — Will this article still be useful in 12 months?
- Gaps we can fill — Is the existing coverage inadequate, biased, or just bad?
We do not cover a topic simply because a vendor asked us to, offered us access, or offered payment. Coverage decisions are made editorially.
How We Research
Our research process varies by content type:
Guides and explainers We draw on primary sources — product documentation, company announcements, academic or industry research — and supplement with insights from HR practitioners where relevant. We do not rely on single sources or vendor marketing materials alone.
Tool reviews Where possible, we request access to or purchase the product directly. We document what we tested, the version/date of testing, and the plan tier used. Where we have not directly tested a product, we clearly say so and explain our research methodology.
Comparisons We compare products using consistent criteria defined before we begin research. Criteria are based on what HR buyers actually care about, not on which features vendors want highlighted.
News and analysis We link to primary sources. We distinguish between confirmed facts, our own analysis, and speculation. We do not publish rumours without corroboration.
How We Test Products
When we test an HR technology product:
- We define evaluation criteria in advance
- We use the product as a real HR buyer would — through the standard onboarding, setup, and core workflows
- We document specific findings with screenshots or examples where useful
- We note limitations (e.g., we tested the Starter plan, not Enterprise)
- We reach out to the vendor for factual corrections before publishing, but not for editorial approval
Our test findings are our own. Vendors do not see or approve review conclusions in advance.
How We Handle Corrections
We take accuracy seriously. Our correction process:
- Minor factual errors (wrong figure, outdated pricing, incorrect feature name) — Corrected promptly, with a note at the bottom of the article stating what was changed and when
- Substantive errors (materially incorrect analysis or conclusions) — Corrected with a more prominent note; if significant enough, the article may be updated or republished with a new date
- Disputed claims — We review the evidence. If a vendor disputes a factual claim, we examine the evidence and respond accordingly. We do not remove accurate negative assessments because a vendor objects
To submit a correction: contact@perkisolutions.com with the subject line “Correction.”
How We Disclose Paid Relationships
We disclose commercial relationships clearly and prominently:
- Affiliate links are identified at the top of any article containing them. A standard disclosure note reads: “Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.”
- Sponsored content is labelled at the top and bottom of the piece with the label “Sponsored” or “Partner Content.” The sponsor has no editorial approval rights over conclusions.
- Review access provided free by vendors is disclosed in the review. It does not affect our conclusions.
- No payment for editorial opinions. If someone offers payment to influence our coverage or ratings, we decline, and may note the attempt.
Our Use of AI in the Workflow
We use AI tools in parts of our editorial process. We believe in being specific about this:
Where we use AI:
- Research assistance — summarising documentation, identifying sources to verify
- Initial outlining — generating structural drafts that writers then rewrite
- SEO and metadata generation
- Proofreading and grammar checking
Where we do not use AI as a replacement for human judgment:
- Product evaluations and opinions — these are written and verified by human editors
- Recommendations — a human makes every recommendation
- Fact-checking — AI outputs are always verified against primary sources
- Publishing decisions — an editor approves every piece before it goes live
We do not publish AI-generated text verbatim. All published content is reviewed, edited, and approved by a human editor. Articles that relied heavily on AI-assisted drafting are noted accordingly.
