Review guidelines
This page provides our guidelines for reviews of equipment provided on loan by a vendor or manufacturer. We would be delighted to review good quality equipment as we can, and these guidelines are intended to ensure that criteria, procedures, and expectations on both sides are clear from the beginning.
Principles
HiFi Zine is an independent audio publication run by audiophiles for audiophiles. Our emphasis in reviewing is on the quality of music reproduction that a product provides in the context of the reviewer’s system. Our reviewers report what they hear and how the product compares with their reference. This much is common to all reviewers but naturally there will be individual differences in how reviewers proceed and write up their evaluation. Though we should not need to say this, there is no guarantee of a favorable review, and publication of a review is never subject to the approval of the person or company providing the equipment.
We are not throwing you to the lions either. We appreciate that your products are the results of significant investments of effort and finance on your part and that you are providing an item for review at your own expense. If you offer a product for review, and one of our writers is interested in taking it on, you can review that writer’s profile, reference system(s), and previous reviews and online writings. If you do not feel that the writer is capable of providing an impartial and useful review of your item, then you can withdraw your request for review and we will go no further with it. If you feel that the writer is capable of providing an impartial and useful review of your item and elect to proceed, then the review process will proceed as described below.
Responsibilities
It is the responsibility of the item provider to have the item shipped to and received by the reviewer at an agreed-upon date. Shipping and insurance, both ways, are the responsibility of the item provider. The reviewer will inspect the item as soon as received, and inform the equipment providor that it has been received and in what condition. The equipment providor agrees that under no circumstances will the reviewer or Hifi Zine be held liable for any damage to or loss to the component, as the review is being provided in good faith and without payment of any kind.
Provider agrees to respond to any questions from the reviewer promptly (ideally within 24 hours), and to work with the reviewer to resolve any issues with equipment performance (electrical issues, equipment faults, compatibility with other equipment, placement, and so on) as necessary, to ensure appropriate operation of the equipment. Where publishing deadlines permit, a draft of the review will be provided prior to publication, so the providor can provide factual corrections and (if they wish to) a “manufacturer’s response” to be published together with the review. Because of our tight publishing schedule, responses are requested within 3 working days.
The reviewer undertakes to handle the item with care and to use it only as intended. As a general rule, Hifi Zine expects that a period of eight weeks is adequate to perform a review, but longer periods are acceptable provided that they are agreed with the item providor in advance. The reviewer agrees to submit the draft copy to Hifi Zine at the completion of this time and to return the item promptly.
If there is an issue with an item submitted for review that results in non-publication of a review, then Hifi Zine may reject all future requests for review from that manufacturer and/or writer, depending on specific circumstances.
Additional points
Review proposals from vendors and manufacturers are passed along to our current writing staff for consideration. Hifi Zine does not, as a general rule, accept reviews as a one-off or casual contribution – we would like that reviews be done by writers who have committed to their position here at Hifi Zine. This is to help ensure the integrity of the review process.
If reasonable circumstances arise in which the normal protocol outlined above – shipping in both directions to paid by the provider, and so on – is not to be followed, then we require that any deviations be stated up front so that all parties are clear on expectations. For example, a kit, which obviously would make no sense to return once assembled, would normally be kept by the assembler/reviewer and/or offered as a discount purchase to the assembler/reviewer. In other cases, certain items make no sense to return, such as certain types of software and small items such as accessories. Any such deviations from the standard protocol shall be noted in advance for consideration and approval by the editors, and information that may be construed by readers as a conflict of interest or otherwise affecting the impartiality of a review may be published together with the review, at the editors’ discretion.
On occasion, a HifiZine writer may review an item that is not provided on loan from the vendor or manufacturer, but which they purchased, or which they obtained on loan from an acquaintance. In that case, there are obviously no expectations on return. A manufacturer’s response may or may not be requested, at the discretion of the writer and editors.
We also welcome the opportunity for loans or donations of items for purposes other than reviewing. Typically, these may be items that are used to assist a writer, and the support will be acknowledged, but the item will not be reviewed per se. Donations of parts used in technical and DIY articles are also welcome, again with an acknowledgment of the assistance but no expectation of a review – the purpose of the donation would be to allow the article to be written as a DIY or technical article and not for comparative evaluation.