Technical Review and Reviewer Attribution | SATCOM Index

SATCOM Index separates internal technical fact checking from named subject-matter review. This page defines the distinction so that a generic organization byline is not mistaken for an individual engineering credential.

Current attribution rule

Articles carrying the SatCom Index byline are maintained by the site as an organization. Unless a separate reviewer card appears on the article, the page does not claim review by a named technical expert.

We do not create placeholder reviewer names, infer identity from repository ownership, reuse a template persona, or describe an anonymous contributor as a credentialed engineer. A missing reviewer is disclosed by leaving the reviewer field empty.

Internal technical fact check

The scope depends on the page, but a technical fact check can include:

• verifying formulas, signs, units, reference planes, and dimensional consistency;
• independently recomputing worked examples;
• matching important claims to the cited document, revision, section, table, figure, or product configuration;
• separating physical limits from measured service performance;
• testing whether a product-specific value was incorrectly generalized;
• identifying assumptions, excluded terms, validity ranges, and operational constraints;
• checking terminology against current standards or official documentation;
• verifying internal links, source links, dates, titles, and change summaries; and
• removing unsupported precision, universal ranges, and unqualified “always” or “never” claims.

This process improves accuracy but is not presented as an independent expert endorsement.

Named technical reviewer requirements

A person may be credited as technical reviewer only when all of the following are available and verified:

1. the person's real name;
2. relevant experience or qualifications for the reviewed topic;
3. the scope of the review they actually performed;
4. the version or date of the material reviewed;
5. permission to display their name and profile; and
6. disclosure of a material employer, vendor, customer, financial, or other conflict relevant to the page.

A reviewer is not required to agree with every editorial choice, but material objections must be resolved, disclosed, or the reviewer attribution removed.

Review scope record

For a named review, the internal record should include:

• page URL and content version;
• review date;
• reviewer identity and profile source;
• topics included and excluded;
• source documents checked;
• calculations independently reproduced;
• corrections requested and disposition; and
• conflicts or limitations.

The public page should show the reviewer and latest update date. A change that materially affects reviewed formulas, conclusions, or product claims requires re-review before the earlier attribution is carried forward.

What review does not mean

Technical review does not turn an educational example into:

• a certified link budget or interference analysis;
• permission to transmit;
• a regulatory filing or legal opinion;
• an equipment warranty or interoperability approval;
• a service-level commitment; or
• site-specific safety or installation authorization.

Readers must still verify product data, operator assignments, local regulation, and current standards for their application.

Reporting a concern

If a reviewer attribution appears incorrect, outdated, or outside the person's expertise, report the page and concern through our Corrections Policy and contact page.

Our broader sourcing and release requirements are documented in the Editorial Policy and Methodology.