How we review

Why there are no scores

A number cannot carry qualification. When we hesitate, we name the cost; when we praise, we name the technique. Stars compress judgement into consumption — useful for apps, useless for criticism. Our listening panel replaces ratings with six plain sentences on structure, narration, sound, sourcing, restraint and accessibility.

Scores also invite comparison across unlike works — a short interview episode against a long documentary — which misleads readers. We prefer slow arguments tested against the tape.

How a piece is assigned and written

The Editor assigns work based on craft interest and public availability. A reviewer listens at least twice — once for overall shape, once with notes on transitions and mix. Drafts cite techniques, not moods. A second reader tests every claim against the work; copy editing checks plain language and accessibility.

We do not publish same-day reactions. Speed is incompatible with the kind of attention documentary audio requires.

Independence

We accept no payment, sponsorship, review copies or supplied material from makers. We carry no affiliate links and no advertising on these pages. We do not contact makers before publication. If a conflict exists — prior employment, personal relationship — we reassign the piece or decline it.

Corrections and right of reply

Errors are corrected on the page with a dated note stating what changed. Makers may write to [email protected]; we read mail during office hours. Reply does not guarantee publication of counter-arguments, but factual corrections are taken seriously.

What we decline

We do not review work we cannot hear fairly, work we were paid to promote, or work where a panel member has an undisclosed conflict. We do not publish listening notes on unreleased material, platform rankings, or equipment round-ups. Method is published so readers know what a review on this site commits to — and what it refuses.