The following standards apply to every article published on BestCardsForMe. They are codified here so readers, affiliate-network reviewers, and prospective partners can verify our commitments before engaging.
Independence
We do not accept payment to recommend a specific card, alter a ranking, or remove a critical review. Recommendations reflect the application of our Methodology to product data — not the commercial preferences of any issuer or affiliate network. When a card we'd otherwise recommend has a structural problem, we name the problem.
Sourcing
Card terms, fees, credits, and earning rates cited in articles reflect publicly available information at the time of publication. Where a specific number requires citation (e.g., a fee that recently changed, a benefit that's been added or removed), we link to the issuer's official source where possible. Where claims rely on our editorial methodology (e.g., point valuations, captured-value math), we link to the Methodology page.
We do not cite anonymous sources, leaked memos, or unverified industry rumors.
Accuracy
We aim for accuracy on every published claim. When we make a material factual error — including incorrect annual fees, incorrect welcome offer terms, incorrect category multipliers, incorrect rate caps, or any factual claim about an issuer's product that is wrong as published — we correct the page and publish a dated correction note (see "Corrections policy" below).
Typos, formatting adjustments, and minor copy edits are made silently. The threshold for a correction note is "did this error change what a reader would understand or decide?"
Editorial firewall
The same person writes the reviews and corresponds with affiliate networks. We don't pretend otherwise. The discipline that protects editorial integrity is documented in Methodology and Affiliate Disclosure and codified in this page. We hold ourselves accountable to it; if we fail at it, we will publish a correction.
Conflicts of interest
The founder and editor of BestCardsForMe personally holds and uses several of the credit cards covered on the site. This is normal for a credit-card publisher — useful coverage requires actual product knowledge — and is the source of most of our methodology-grounded experience. Personal cardholding does not influence editorial recommendations beyond contributing to first-hand product familiarity.
We do not invest in the equity of issuers we cover. We do not accept gifts, comped trips, or "press junkets" from issuers, hotels, airlines, or affiliate networks.
AI use
We use AI tooling (large language models) to assist with research, drafting, fact-checking, and editorial review. Every article published on the site is reviewed by the founder and editor of BestCardsForMe, applies the documented methodology consistently, and is subject to the corrections policy below. AI is a tool that accelerates the editorial process; it does not replace editorial judgment, methodology adherence, or factual review.
We do not publish AI-generated content with hallucinated facts, fabricated card terms, or invented sources. When we make factual errors despite our review process, we treat them under the corrections policy like any other editorial error.
Welcome bonus framing
We deliberately do not anchor card recommendations on welcome bonus value. Welcome bonuses change quarterly and reward the first year only. Year-2 economics are the durable comparison and the basis of our recommendations. We mention welcome bonuses in articles when relevant but do not let them drive the recommendation.
Conservative voice
When we don't know something, we say so. When card terms have shifted recently and the published number may not be current, we tell readers to verify with the issuer. When two cards are roughly equivalent for a profile, we present the trade-offs and let readers decide rather than pretend one is decisively better.