Authors & Reviewers

Who publishes the articles?

MileShift Report currently uses a collective publication byline for its automotive research and ownership guides. “MileShift Report editorial research” identifies the publishing label and type of work. It is not the name of an individual engineer, mechanic or laboratory.

This page does not currently list a roster of individually verified technical reviewers. A collective byline does not mean that several people independently reviewed an article. We do not claim that every guide has received hands-on testing or review by a licensed automotive professional.

Our coverage is written in English, primarily for US owners and used-car shoppers. Articles should identify when a source instead concerns another market, a different vehicle generation or a future production plan. The editorial policy explains the publication’s evidence and independence standards.

How is AI assistance used?

AI assistance is used in the current workflow for organizing research, drafting and revising text, checking cited material, and editing the website. AI-generated language is not an independent source, a professional qualification or evidence that a vehicle was inspected.

A source-review label must not be interpreted as a promise that a human technician checked every statement. Readers should be able to follow links to the underlying documents and distinguish what those documents establish from editorial interpretation. Important uncertainties belong in the article, not behind an authoritative-looking byline.

Where an article needs vehicle-specific diagnosis, recall confirmation or a repair decision, the relevant manufacturer, regulator and qualified service professional remain the appropriate resources. AI assistance does not replace those roles.

What does “Sources reviewed” mean?

On an updated guide, the date refers to the source-checking work recorded for that revision. It is not necessarily the date of the underlying study, service bulletin or announcement. An older study does not become new data because an article was reviewed recently.

Source checks should cover the document’s origin and date, the relevant model years and market, the units used and the limits of the claim. A manufacturer announcement can support what was announced without proving a fleet-wide failure rate. A calculation should identify its inputs and distinguish estimates from observed results.

Source review is also different from technical review. We should describe a review as performed by a named specialist only when the person’s identity, relevant expertise, role and review scope can be substantiated. A source list alone does not establish that such a review took place.

What information is required for named contributors?

Before presenting someone as an author or technical reviewer, the publication should establish a genuine profile that identifies:

• The contributor’s name and actual role in the work, with their agreement to be credited.
• Relevant experience and the subjects they are qualified to address, without invented employers or qualifications.
• A verifiable basis for any claimed license, certification or professional affiliation.
• The articles or specific review work associated with that person, and any relevant financial relationships.

These are requirements for future credited profiles, not a claim that a reviewer panel already exists. Until the supporting information is available, we will not use fictional biographies, stock portraits presented as staff, or professional titles as trust signals.

How are conflicts of interest handled?

Contributors must disclose relevant employment, manufacturer, supplier, dealership, repair-shop, affiliate and other commercial relationships. The relationship and its relevance should be clear to the reader where applicable.

A sponsored placement or contributed article is not evidence of independent technical review. Commercial participation must not be used to create a false author identity, conceal a material relationship or purchase an unsupported favorable conclusion. Publication standards apply to contributed work as well as in-house research.

How can you question a byline or submit a correction?

Use the MileShift contact page and include the article URL, the name or statement being questioned, and a public source that helps explain the issue. For a credential concern, identify the exact title or affiliation rather than sending private identity documents.

The corrections policy describes how material errors should be handled. Older pages are being reviewed and replaced in stages; an unsupported claim should be reported even if it appears alongside an editorial badge or source-review date.

This contact route is for publication matters, not urgent vehicle assistance. Do not wait for an editorial response when a warning, safety recall or mechanical problem requires professional attention.