These standards guide the review of NetworkGuard360 contributions. They describe the evidence a contribution should contain, rather than claiming that every article has been independently lab-tested or certified by a vendor.
How contributions are reviewed
- Submission. Approved contributors submit sanitized material into Pending Review. Contributors cannot publish directly.
- Technical review. An Editor or Administrator assesses the environment, investigation, evidence, root cause, remediation and verification. Product claims should cite relevant vendor documentation and identify version dependencies.
- Confidentiality review. Check text, screenshots, commands, logs and attachments for identifying information, secrets and publication rights.
- Publication decision. The reviewer may request clarification, return the article for revision, or approve publication. Missing evidence should be disclosed rather than presented as a verified result.
Field evidence and lab reconstruction
Authors should distinguish production observations, lab reproductions, documented product behavior and inference. Include the scope of verification and important limitations. A working result in one environment does not guarantee the same outcome elsewhere.
Sources, independence and disclosure
Use original vendor documentation for product behavior and security advisories where applicable. Explain conflicting evidence and dates. Vendor coverage does not imply partnership or endorsement. Any sponsorship, commercial relationship or relevant conflict should be disclosed clearly.
Corrections
Send the article URL, disputed statement, relevant product/version and sanitized evidence through Contact or to support@networkguard360.com. The editorial team can review the report and update the article. Material corrections should state what changed and why, with a date, in the article and the Corrections & Updates log.