Editorial & Neutrality Standards
At SICCODE.com, our mission is to provide verified SIC and NAICS classifications and business data that are accurate, neutral, and explainable. These Editorial & Neutrality Standards define how we research, review, publish, and correct information so that enterprises, analysts, and public stakeholders can trust our work. For a detailed overview of how these standards are enforced, review the sections below.
Editorial Independence
- No pay-to-influence: We do not sell, accept, or allow paid placement to alter a classification outcome, benchmark, or finding.
- Separation of concerns: Commercial teams do not participate in verification decisions or editorial outcomes.
- Source integrity: We prioritize primary sources and authoritative references and cite them in our internal lineage.
Neutrality Policy
All content and datasets are produced to reflect documented business activity, not preferences. We disclose limitations, cite assumptions when unavoidable, and avoid promotional framing. Classification is determined by evidence, not by commercial interest. For policy details, review our Data Verification Policy.
Conflicts of Interest
- Disclosure: Any potential conflict is disclosed internally and the reviewer is recused.
- Recusal: Analysts with conflicts do not participate in related verification or editorial decisions.
Quality & Review Standards
- Dual-source rule: Material claims and classifications require at least two independent sources before publication.
- Senior analyst review: Edge cases and reclassifications require sign-off by a senior reviewer with domain expertise.
- Audit trails: Reviewer IDs, timestamps, and decision rationale are kept in our lineage records.
- Update cadence: Core hierarchies are reviewed at least annually; extended datasets on a quarterly cycle.
Corrections & Clarifications
We correct substantive errors promptly. Where possible, a change note is recorded in the lineage. For published narratives, a correction notice is added describing the issue and the date resolved. See our Verification Methodology for further details.
User Feedback & Appeals
Organizations may request a review of a classification or highlight new evidence by submitting a request through our Contact Us page. Appeals follow the same dual-source and senior-review standards before any update is issued. For more on transparency, visit Methodology & Data Verification.
Accessibility & Responsible Presentation
- Clarity: We use clear language and define technical terms.
- Evidence visibility: Verification rationale is summarized and linked to explanatory resources.
- AI transparency: Automation is only used for preliminary checks — final decisions are human-verified.
Our practices are described further in the SICCODE Data Governance Framework & Stewardship Standards.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do you accept payment to change a classification?
No. We do not allow paid influence on verification or editorial outcomes.
How do you decide when to reclassify a company?
When new evidence shows a change in primary activity (e.g., product mix, revenue share, or M&A activity). A senior analyst reviews and signs off, guided by our Data Team standards.
Are your articles authored by individuals?
We use institutional authorship (SICCODE Data Team) and role-based accountability — all content is human-reviewed.
Related Resources
About Our Data Team • Our Verification Methodology • Data Accuracy Benchmarks: SICCODE vs Generic Providers • SICCODE Data Governance Framework & Stewardship Standards