Editorial Policy

ScissorBrands does not operate a shop. This page sets out the standard we use when creating or revising a profile, guide or comparison.

Core principles

• Verifiability. A factual claim should link to the maker’s documentation or another identified source. A retailer’s listing is attributed to that seller and does not, by itself, prove an authorised relationship.
• Opinion separated from fact. A recommendation is an editorial view, not a laboratory result or a customer review. We explain the model and the trade-offs when evidence is available.
• Balance over hype. We weigh trade-offs instead of crowning absolute winners. If the honest recommendation is the cheaper pair, we say so.

How a brand profile comes together

1. Research. Find the maker’s exact-model specification. Use retailer listings as secondary sources and identify any conflict.
2. Write. A profile is drafted from those facts in a plain, practitioner-focused voice — specific, honest, and free of marketing language.
3. Fact-check. Check each factual field against a named source before publishing or updating it. Leave a gap visible when the fact cannot be established.
4. Review and update. Record an individual review date only when the profile has actually been checked. Existing profiles are being audited; a file modification date is not a review date.

Independence and funding

We do not operate a checkout. Some external seller links may earn a commission, as described in our legal notice. That link relationship is separate from evidence for a product claim or seller authorisation. A hands-on assessment should name any sample supplier and the conditions of the assessment on that page.

Language standards

We write in clear, modern English and explain technical terms on first use. We avoid empty hype (“game-changing,” “unlock,” “the best ever”) and inflated claims. The aim is that a first-year apprentice and a thirty-year veteran can both read a page and come away better informed.

Accuracy and legal care

We don’t publish accusations of counterfeiting, fake steel or fraud. Manufacturing claims are reported as the brand states them, attributed accordingly, rather than asserted as proven fact. Where a brand’s own information is thin or inconsistent, we flag the uncertainty instead of papering over it.

Corrections

We would much rather fix an error than defend one. If a detail is wrong or out of date — or you work for a brand with a catalogue update — tell us via the contact page, ideally with a source. We verify, update the page, and note the change when it’s significant. Our full assessment method lives in the review methodology.

  </div>
</div>
<div class="col-12 col-lg-4">
  <div class="brand-sidebar">
    <div class="buy-box">
      <div class="buy-box__title"><i class="fas fa-shield-alt"></i> In short</div>
      <ul class="mb-0" style="padding-left:1.1rem;font-size:0.92rem;">
      <li class="mb-2">Use a source for each exact-model claim.</li>
      <li class="mb-2">Show uncertainty when facts are missing.</li>
      <li class="mb-2">Keep opinion separate from fact.</li>
        <li>We fix errors fast — please flag them.</li>
      </ul>
    </div>
    <div class="buy-box">
      <div class="buy-box__title"><i class="fas fa-link"></i> Related</div>
      <ul class="retailer-list" style="grid-template-columns:1fr">
        <li><a href="/reviews-methodology/">Review methodology <i class="fas fa-arrow-right fa-xs"></i></a></li>
        <li><a href="/about/">About us <i class="fas fa-arrow-right fa-xs"></i></a></li>
        <li><a href="/contact/">Suggest a correction <i class="fas fa-arrow-right fa-xs"></i></a></li>
      </ul>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>