Editorial policy

Curious Cycling Review aims to make cycling easier to understand without pretending that every question has one universal answer. We write for general readers and make a clear distinction between explanation, opinion and material supplied through a partnership.

Accuracy and clarity

We check factual statements against suitable sources and use language that reflects the strength of what is known. When a subject is disputed, context-dependent or uncertain, we say so rather than flattening the differences. We do not invent tests, personal experience, sources or results. General articles are not a substitute for specialist inspection, safety-critical advice or checking rules that vary by location.

Independence

Editorial decisions are made for reader interest and relevance to cycling, not as a promise of favourable coverage. A commercial relationship does not guarantee an article, mention or recommendation. If a relationship could reasonably affect how readers understand a piece, we disclose it clearly.

Corrections

If you spot a factual error or unclear passage, please use the Contact page and identify the article and the point at issue. We review correction requests and update material when warranted. Significant corrections are identified in the article so readers can understand what changed; we do not silently recast a meaningful error.

Partner material and illustrations

Paid, commissioned or otherwise partner-supported material is labelled in a way readers can see. We identify the nature of the relationship and keep commercial copy distinct from independent editorial work. Some illustrations may be generated using AI; where relevant, this is disclosed, and illustrations are not presented as documentary evidence.