Editorial Standards

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Giovanni Picaro, Editor-in-Chief

This is the complete editorial code that governs SlotMap. Every review and article we publish is checked against this code before going live. The code draws on principles from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, adapted for the demands of casino review writing where editorial accuracy directly affects whether readers risk their money with operators we have reviewed.

1. Editorial independence

SlotMap is owned and operated by its founder, with no external shareholders, no holding company, and no parent affiliate network. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team without input from operators, affiliate networks, or commercial partners. No operator, network, or commercial partner has the right to review, approve, or alter editorial content prior to publication.

If a commercial partner attempts to influence editorial coverage, we decline the relationship and document the attempt internally. If the attempt rises to the level of public interest, we may publish an account of it, with the partner identified.

2. Accuracy

Every factual claim in our reviews and articles is sourced and verifiable. License claims are verified directly against the regulator’s public register. Bonus terms are quoted from the operator’s published T&Cs. Withdrawal, KYC, and support response timings are based on our actual measurements during the test cycle. Where a claim depends on third-party reporting or our own past coverage, we link directly.

Specific commitments:

• License authority and license number are stated with linkable reference to the regulator’s public register.
• Bonus terms are quoted in plain language with the original wording cited.
• Test timings (KYC, withdrawal, support) are reported with the date the test occurred.
• Claims about operator behavior outside our direct testing are sourced.

If we publish something inaccurate, we correct it according to our Corrections Policy.

3. Transparency about test conditions

Casino review accuracy depends on test conditions being clearly identified. Every operator review identifies: the test reviewer, the date of the test cycle, the jurisdiction the reviewer is in (because operator behavior varies by jurisdiction), the deposit amount used, and the specific account-tier the test reflects (a normal account behaves differently from a VIP account, and we test the normal account).

Where review conclusions depend on conditions that may not generalize, we say so. An operator that paid out a withdrawal in 24 hours to a UK player on a UKGC license may behave differently for a Curaçao-licensed account; we identify which condition applied.

4. Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest exists whenever a writer or editor has a relationship with a person or entity that could reasonably be expected to influence judgment about that person or entity. Conflicts are not necessarily disqualifying; they are necessarily disclosable.

Specific situations we treat as conflicts requiring disclosure:

• SlotMap has an active or imminent affiliate relationship with the operator.
• A team member has been a paid employee, contractor, or consultant for the operator or its parent group.
• A team member holds an investment, equity, or other financial interest that would benefit from the coverage.
• A team member has a personal relationship with a person directly involved in operating or managing the operator.
• The operator (or its parent) has provided non-trivial gifts, hospitality, or junkets to a team member.
• A team member is a current or recent VIP-tier player at the operator (the underlying tester relationship is fine; longstanding insider VIP status is a distinct relationship that requires disclosure).

Disclosures appear in a clearly marked block at the top of the review, in plain language.

5. Sourcing and attribution

All quotations, paraphrases, and factual claims drawn from external sources are attributed. License-register entries, regulator decisions, and ADR rulings are linked. Bonus terms and operator policy quotations are attributed to the operator’s own published material.

For our complete sourcing practice, see Sources & Citations.

6. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a firing-level offense. We have not had a case in our history. If we ever do, the offending writer is removed from the team, the article is retracted with a public notice, and the original source is contacted with an apology.

7. Anonymous sources

We grant anonymity sparingly. The most common case in casino-industry reporting is a current or former employee describing internal operator behavior; we treat such sources with the standard journalistic care, corroborate where possible, and attribute on background only when the public interest in publishing outweighs the loss of accountability.

8. Privacy

Public-facing operator personnel — CEOs, public-affairs leads, named compliance officers — are subject to public commentary on their public roles. Their private lives are off-limits unless directly relevant. Junior employees and players are not public figures and are afforded standard privacy.

For our handling of reader privacy, see our Privacy Policy.

9. Player protection in editorial framing

Casino editorial work has an unavoidable player-protection dimension. The standards we hold:

• Reviews note the responsible-gambling tools available at the operator (deposit limits, time limits, reality checks, cooling-off, self-exclusion).
• Operators with weak responsible-gambling provision are flagged.
• Bonus content includes plain-language warnings about chasing losses with bonuses.
• Content does not present gambling as a way to make money.
• Content does not target self-excluded players, problem gamblers, or minors. Targeting includes search-keyword strategies as well as on-site framing.
• Content includes responsible-gambling resources where the topic warrants — particularly in coverage of bonus chasing, high-volatility gameplay, and big-win narratives.

The full framework is on the Responsible Gambling page.

10. Errors and corrections

When we discover an error in published work, we correct it. The correction is logged at the bottom of the article with the date and a description. We do not silently revise. The full process is in the Corrections Policy.

11. Right of reply

Operators significantly criticized in a published review have the right to respond, on the same review, in a clearly identified note. Right-of-reply submissions are reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness; we do not publish abusive or off-topic responses, but we publish substantive disagreements even when we continue to disagree.

12. Embargoes

When an operator or industry source provides advance information under embargo, we honor the embargo if we agreed to it. We do not retroactively claim embargo cover on information obtained independently.

13. Editorial governance

The Editor-in-Chief (Giovanni Picaro) is responsible for application of these standards across the publication. Disputes between team members about the application of a standard are resolved by the Editor-in-Chief. Disputes involving the Editor-in-Chief’s own conduct are resolved by consensus of the remaining editorial team members.

Readers who believe these standards have been violated should email info [at] slotmap [punto] space with the subject line Editorial standards complaint. Complaints are reviewed within seven business days, and a public response is issued whenever a violation is confirmed.

14. Review and revision

This document is reviewed at least once every twelve months and revised as our understanding evolves. Significant changes are summarized in a public changelog appended to this page.

Related pages: Our Mission · How We Work · Corrections Policy · Sources & Citations · Responsible Gambling