FundingAtlas

Editorial

Review process

How advisor-reviewed grants are produced, evidenced, updated and corrected.

1. Advisor review workflow

An advisor-reviewed grant is a standard catalogue entry that has been read end-to-end by a domain editor and re-written against the official source. The reviewer captures four things that ordinary listings do not always carry: who the programme is genuinely for, who it is not for, the most common reasons applications fail, and what materially improves the odds of success.

  1. Editor reads the official source page and any published guidance in full.
  2. Editor cross-checks any application portal, prospectus or scheme rules referenced from that page.
  3. Editor drafts plain-English summaries, eligibility checklists and required-document lists.
  4. A second reviewer checks claims against the source before the entry is marked advisor-reviewed.
  5. The grant carries a last_editorial_review_at timestamp visible on the page.

2. Evidence standards

  • Every factual claim must be supported by the linked official source at time of review.
  • Amount ranges and funding types are taken from the source, never estimated or rounded for effect.
  • Eligibility statements are written in plain English but must not change the meaning of the underlying rules. Where rules are genuinely ambiguous, we say so rather than invent clarity.
  • Advisor notes are flagged as editorial commentary, not as funder guidance.
  • We do not publish reviewer names per grant — see the editorial team section on Editorial Standards.

3. Update process

Programmes change. FundingAtlas monitors source pages for material changes and re-reviews affected grants on a rolling basis. Programme windows that have closed are unpublished and surfaced again only when the funder reopens them. The last_editorial_review_at field is updated whenever a grant is re-read — not on cosmetic edits.

4. Editorial principles

  • Independence. No paid placement, sponsored listings or featured-provider fees. Providers cannot pay to influence ranking or visibility.
  • Plain English over jargon. If a funder uses an acronym, we expand it on first use.
  • Useful conservatism. We flag where applicants are usually too early, where common misconceptions exist, and where rejection rates are high.
  • Source-first. Where we and the official source disagree, the source wins and we update.

5. Escalation process for corrections

If you spot an inaccuracy on a grant page — wrong amount, wrong eligibility, closed programme, broken source link — use the Report an update link in the trust band on that page, or email the editorial team via the address on the Editorial Standards page. Reports are triaged within two working days and corrections are usually published within five.

For more substantial disputes (factual disagreements with a funder, requests for removal from a comparison or pathway), corrections are reviewed by a second editor before any change is made, and the change is logged.

Related