Editorial Policy and Publishing Standards | SATCOM Index

SATCOM Index publishes educational material about satellite communications. This policy explains how we distinguish sourced fact, calculation, product-specific information, editorial analysis, and uncertainty. It applies to articles, comparison pages, glossary content, and engineering tools published under the SATCOM Index name.

Organizational authorship

SatCom Index is an organizational byline, not the name or credential of an individual engineer. It means the site is responsible for preparing and maintaining the page. It must not be interpreted as evidence that a named subject-matter expert reviewed the work.

When a page has a verified individual technical reviewer, the page may display a separate reviewer card. We only publish that attribution after confirming the person's identity, relevant experience, review scope, and permission to be named. A page without that card has no claimed named technical reviewer. See our Technical Review Policy.

Evidence hierarchy

We prefer sources in this order, subject to the claim being made:

1. current standards, regulations, recommendations, and official technical specifications;
2. official operator, manufacturer, agency, or project documentation for claims about that organization or equipment;
3. peer-reviewed papers, institutional research, and established technical handbooks;
4. clearly identified secondary sources when primary material is unavailable;
5. editorial analysis derived from declared inputs and cited source material.

A source is useful only when it supports the specific claim. Linking to a standards-library homepage does not substantiate a feature-level statement. We aim to identify the document number or product, revision or publication date, relevant section/table/figure when available, and access date.

Fact, example, and analysis labels

• Documented fact: directly supported by the cited source within the source's stated scope.
• Calculated result: derived from declared inputs, formula, units, constants, and rounding.
• Worked example: an educational scenario, not a network design, quotation, service promise, or equipment recommendation.
• Editorial inference: a conclusion drawn from sources or calculations; it should be identified as an inference and its assumptions stated.
• Product or service claim: limited to the named product, configuration, geography, commercial plan, and source date. It is not generalized to an entire frequency band, orbit, or vendor category.

Technical calculations

Engineering calculations should include:

• the input values and reference planes;
• units for every input and output;
• the formula and applicable standard or physical basis;
• constants and rounding rules when they affect reproducibility;
• boundary conditions and excluded losses or delays;
• a reverse calculation or independent recomputation for material examples; and
• a warning when operational approval or a complete professional design is still required.

Calculated examples must not imply that default rain margin, antenna efficiency, local-oscillator frequency, availability, MODCOD threshold, or equipment performance applies universally.

Technical review levels

We distinguish three activities:

1. Editorial QA: structure, language, link integrity, metadata, dates, and consistency.
2. Technical fact check: formulas, units, source-to-claim fit, version scope, boundary conditions, and independent recomputation.
3. Named subject-matter review: review by an identified person with relevant experience and permission to be credited.

Completing the first two does not justify displaying a named reviewer. The page itself is the source of truth: if no reviewer is shown, readers should not assume one.

Automated and AI-assisted work

Software and AI-assisted tools may be used for drafting support, search, translation support, calculation checks, formatting, or quality assurance. Automated output is not accepted as evidence. Material claims must still be checked against accessible sources, and calculations must be reproducible from the published inputs.

We do not use an automated confidence score as a substitute for a source, a named reviewer, or an engineering acceptance test.

Updates and corrections

Materially revised articles should display the original publication date, latest update date, and a concise change summary. A newer date alone does not prove that every source was rechecked.

Substantiated errors are handled under our Corrections Policy. Material corrections should be visible on the page or in its change summary rather than silently disguised as routine copyediting.

Independence and conflicts

Advertising, affiliate, sponsorship, free equipment, data access, or other material relationships must not determine a technical conclusion. Applicable commercial relationships should be disclosed close to the relevant content. Product names are used for identification and do not imply endorsement.

Publication gate

A new or materially rewritten technical page is not ready for publication unless it has:

• a defined user question and primary topic;
• original analysis, calculation, decision framework, or other information gain;
• claim-level sources for material factual assertions;
• declared assumptions, units, and applicability limits;
• checked internal and external links;
• a real organizational or individual byline;
• no unverified named reviewer claim; and
• completed editorial and technical QA appropriate to its risk.

High-risk claims involving transmission safety, regulation, contractual service commitments, financial decisions, or operational authorization require additional caution and should direct readers to the responsible operator, regulator, manufacturer, or qualified professional.

Contact

Questions about this policy or a specific article can be sent through our contact page. For research and calculation details, see our Methodology.