Keen readers of technology publications feel strongly about the concepts of bias or influence in any reporting they may be reading. Readers prefer and stick to publications that they trust to present product reviews, news and opinion in a fair unbiased and professional manner as expected from any serious journalist worldwide.

NitroWare.net believes strongly in these principles of fair, unbiased quality content. This is the core of what we do and we will not compromise on this. Other publications focus on rapid-fire high quantity content using ‘blogs’ as justification for such a theme.

Some publications especially smaller or less professional outlets will give or allow a vendor that as submitted some product for review final copy approval. What this means is that they will allow the vendor to have a final say on the overall review or its test results. In some cases, the vendor may completely bias the outcome of a review as extreme case or may censor some critical aspects raised in the article.

Some vendors both large and small also expect to have some sort of influence on any editorial review or article they have some role in facilitating. They see small publications as easy targets and avenues for free controlled publicity.

We are Nitroware.net do not bow down to such demands. We believe in giving everyone ‘a fair go’ and this entails giving a vendor or firm who is involved with a review the right of reply or a chance to remedy any technical issues that may unfairly influence the outcome of a review.

Technology products are highly complicated and technical products. No product or vendor is perfect neither is any specific test regime. In many cases, if there is an issue with the performance and functionality of a product the vendor can provide a hardware, firmware or software fix to correct the issue.

As this publication believes in fairness and equality, it does not do our publication any good if we report flawed test results to our readers as they will have the wrong impression of a product which they will base their purchasing decision. Neither does it do the vendor any justice if the evaluation performance is not meeting formal expectations due to a bug or issue.

If a vendor asks us to hold a review while certain issues are investigated we will only agree to such requests if we feel it’s in the readers benefit or we see that the results are not to OUR expectation or liking, as well as giving the vendor  a fair go and right of reply. We will not give any firm final copy approval.

In the interest of openness with our readers, the following organisations have assisted and sponsored our publication with resources such as hardware loans, software licenses, advance information or paid advertising to assist us with our content. With such assistance, we would not be able to provide our service to our readers.

We have listed these vendors in alphabetic order without any emphasis or weighting on the contribution they have provided or the firm’s size. All Vendors, large and small who work with NitroWare.net in a media/press relations capacity receive equal consideration. For some vendors we work with a nominated third party Public Relations or Marketing organisation that represent and manage a vendor’s communications, if this is the case we have listed their client – the vendor and not the communication firm.

This page is for disclosure purposes and is not an endorsement or advert listing. Vendors need to earn the trust of our readers and ourselves on their own merits and not by any endorsements.

This list also serves a secondary function to inform readers or interested parties on our scope and reach within the technology sector. Should any reader, vendor or other technology publications have any queries regarding bias or influence for our content, please write to the Editor and we will be more than happy to discuss your concerns.

Signed,

Dominic Sharoo

Editor

NitroWare.net