01 / EDITORIAL POLICY
Useful rankings start with rules.
PR Agency Ranking exists to help buyers build a better shortlist—not to manufacture winners. This policy governs topic selection, evidence, judgment, conflicts, approval, and corrections.
POLICY MAP
Audit the rules.
WHY THIS EXISTS
Purpose and scope
Our work should answer a buyer’s real question: which agencies appear to fit this brief, and what evidence supports that conclusion? A ranking is a research-backed starting point. It is not a guarantee of results, chemistry, availability, or commercial fit.
This policy applies to every organic ranking and agency profile regardless of whether an agency has submitted information, bought a separate labeled product, referred business, sponsored research, or has another relationship with the site.
Buyer rule: use rankings to build and challenge a shortlist. Confirm availability, budget, conflicts, team access, measurement, and working style directly.
CORE STANDARD
Six editorial principles
01
Evidence before claims
Unsupported facts are removed or clearly identified as agency-reported.
02
Fit before fame
Size, awards, and brand recognition do not automatically make an agency right for a brief.
03
Category-specific judgment
Criteria and weights may change when industries require different expertise or operating models.
04
Fact and assessment stay distinct
Services, locations, clients, and campaigns require sources. Best-for labels are editorial conclusions.
05
Limitations remain visible
Unknown pricing, thin proof, unclear staffing, and evidence gaps are stated plainly.
06
No paid organic rank
Commercial involvement cannot buy inclusion, score, position, or favorable language.
ENTRY GATE
Topic and agency selection
Choose a useful buyer question
We prioritize topics where buyers face a meaningful choice and evidence can support a defensible comparison.
Map a broad candidate universe
Discovery can use trade coverage, awards, client credits, directories, referrals, and official sites.
Apply the evidence gate
A candidate normally needs a current official source, two usable independent sources, and a relevant client or campaign signal.
Record exclusions honestly
Insufficient public evidence or category fit is not automatically a judgment about overall agency quality.
Search demand may influence timing, but it never lowers the evidence threshold. We may delay a ranking when sources are mostly self-published, meaningful differences cannot be supported, or a material conflict remains unresolved.
EVIDENCE HIERARCHY
Source standards
Highest weight goes to client-confirmed work, credible trade reporting, detailed award records, independent campaign credits, and dated official records. Agency websites and case studies establish self-described services and provide research leads; important outcome claims receive more confidence when independently corroborated.
A
Verified fact
Directly supported by an accessible, relevant source.
B
Supported inference
A careful conclusion drawn from multiple facts and labeled as editorial assessment.
C
Agency-reported claim
Useful context supplied by the agency but not independently confirmed.
Generic directories, undated listicles, scraped pages, anonymous claims, unopened search snippets, and AI-generated summaries cannot satisfy the evidence standard on their own.
SEPARATION RULE
Facts are not verdicts.
We do not present inference as fact or repeat promotional superlatives as editorial conclusions. A named client can be a sourced fact. Whether that experience makes an agency a strong fit for a buyer is an assessment that must show its reasoning.
Writing test: readers should be able to tell what the source proves, what the agency says, and what our editorial team concludes.
CONFLICT CONTROL
Commercial context cannot set rank.
Relevant client, affiliate, referral, sponsorship, ownership, or other commercial relationships must be recorded before scoring and disclosed on affected pages. They do not guarantee research coverage, inclusion, or position.
- The same evidence gate applies to related and unrelated agencies.
- Ranking order is locked from the completed scoring record.
- Sponsored or enhanced placements must sit outside organic ranking order.
- Affected pages link to the relevant commercial disclosure.
- Competitors and readers retain the same correction access.
Read the commercial disclosures for the complete rules.
PUBLICATION CONTROL
Review, approval, and corrections
Check the research record
Candidate coverage, source quality, dates, and rejected claims are reviewed.
Check the judgment
Scoring consistency, decision boundaries, trade-offs, and claim wording are challenged.
Check trust signals
Conflicts, disclosures, reviewer details, update dates, and links are confirmed.
Lock and publish
Ranking order is fixed before promotional copy or page design is finalized.
Accept evidence challenges
Agencies, clients, and readers may submit traceable evidence under the same standards.
Refresh only after review
Update dates change after substantive review—not because a calendar year changed.
Until a named human reviewer is publicly confirmed, foundation pages are reviewed by the PR Agency Ranking Editorial Desk. See the corrections policy.
RESEARCH TOOLS
How AI may—and may not—help
Research tools may assist source discovery, organization, extraction, comparison, and consistency checks. They do not lower the evidence threshold. Unsupported generated text is not a source. Publication, scoring, disclosures, and corrections remain editorial decisions.
Non-negotiable: no generated claim enters a ranking merely because it sounds plausible.
BOUNDARIES
What agencies cannot buy
NO 01
Organic rank position
Payment cannot move an agency up an organic list.
NO 02
Guaranteed inclusion
Submission, sponsorship, or referral does not clear the evidence gate.
NO 03
Positive conclusions
Favorable language must follow the record, not a commercial request.
NO 04
Removed trade-offs
Accurate buyer-relevant limitations stay visible.
NO 05
Suppressed corrections
Material supported errors are corrected.
NO 06
Hidden preference
Commercial treatment must be labeled and separated.
CHALLENGE THE RECORD
Evidence is welcome. Influence is not.
Questions about this policy belong with the editorial team. Evidence-backed challenges belong in the corrections process.