Editorial standards
The rules we follow for everything we publish: listings, scores, the Briefing and guides.
Credentialing Scorecard is operated by Metolius Health, which is listed in our Software and Managed Services tracks. These standards apply to coverage of it in the same way as to everyone else. Disclosure
1. No source, no sentence
Every factual statement on this site traces to a source you can open: a vendor’s own page, a regulator or accreditor’s record, a filing, a press release or a named news report. Sources are shown as links next to the claim, with the date we read them. If we can’t source a fact, we leave it out.
2. Dates on everything
Every listing shows when it was last checked. Every Briefing issue and field note shows when it was published and, if changed, when it was updated. We change an “updated” date only when the content changes.
3. Vendor claims are labeled, not repeated
When a vendor says something about itself that we can’t confirm elsewhere, such as a speed, accuracy or customer-count figure, we either leave it out or say plainly that it is the vendor’s claim. We do not present a vendor’s own performance numbers as fact.
4. NCQA status comes from NCQA
We record NCQA status only from NCQA’s certification directory, never from a vendor’s website or sales material. We re-pull the directory every quarter and log changes.
5. Estimates are not prices
A price appears only if the vendor publishes it on its own site. Third-party estimates and industry ranges are not shown as a vendor’s price.
6. Scores follow the published rubric
Scores come only from the published methodology. A dimension without cited evidence says “Not yet verified”, a documented capability score describes sourced scope with coverage alongside it, and an overall rating appears only when the evidence threshold is met. Editors cannot adjust a composite by hand, for any vendor, including the one that operates this site.
7. Both tracks, every issue
Every Briefing issue covers at least one software item, one managed-services item and a regulation watch. Vendor news is reported neutrally, including news that helps a competitor of our operator.
8. How we cover our operator
Any Briefing item or guide passage that mentions Metolius Health carries an inline note that it operates this site. Its score changes are logged like everyone else’s. It does not submit user reviews about itself.
9. Corrections
If we get something wrong, we fix it, say what changed and date the fix.
- Small fixes (a typo, a broken link) are corrected without a note.
- Factual corrections get a dated note at the foot of the page: “Correction, [date]: we previously said X. The correct information is Y.”
- Corrections that move a score are also logged in listing and score changes.
Anyone can report an error. Vendors should use the form on our vendors page; everyone else can reach us through Metolius Health’s website.
10. Bylines
Articles carry the byline “Credentialing Scorecard editors”. We do not invent authors or personas.
11. How we use AI tools
We use software tools, including AI models, to help find and organize sources and to draft. AI models also do a first-pass screen of user reviews for spam; uncertain cases go to a person. We do not publish AI-generated reviews, and no AI tool assigns a score: scores are computed by code from cited evidence and the published rubric.
12. User reviews
User reviews are shown in their own block, labeled as user reviews, separate from our editorial scores. We moderate for spam, off-topic content, personal information and abuse, not for opinion. We don’t remove a genuine review because a vendor dislikes it.
13. What we don’t do
- Sell placement, coverage, scores or removal.
- Accept gifts or payment from vendors for coverage.
- Describe a vendor we haven’t evidenced as scored.