Editorial Guidelines

Our commitment to independent, accurate, and transparent journalism for the DSO industry.

DSO News is committed to providing the dental service organization industry with journalism that is accurate, fair, and independent. These editorial guidelines govern how we produce, publish, and maintain our content. We publish these standards publicly so our readers can hold us accountable.

Editorial Independence

Editorial independence is the foundation of everything we publish. Our editorial decisions — what stories we cover, what questions we ask, and what conclusions we draw — are made solely by our editorial team based on the newsworthiness and relevance of the topic to our readers.

To maintain this independence, we adhere to the following principles:

No pay-for-play coverage. Advertising and sponsorship relationships never influence editorial decisions. An advertiser receives no favorable coverage, and a non-advertiser receives no unfavorable coverage, based on their commercial relationship with us.
Clear separation of editorial and business. Our editorial team operates independently from our business and advertising functions. Business staff do not have input into editorial content, story selection, or publication timing.
No undisclosed conflicts of interest. If any member of our editorial team has a personal or financial interest related to a topic being covered, that interest must be disclosed to the editorial leadership and either managed through recusal or disclosed to readers.
Advertising is always labeled. Sponsored content, paid placements, and advertisements are clearly and prominently labeled. We never disguise advertising as editorial content.

Sourcing Standards

Credible reporting depends on credible sources. Our sourcing standards ensure that the information we publish is reliable, verifiable, and fair.

Primary Sources

We prioritize original reporting based on primary sources: direct interviews with executives, operators, and technologists; official company announcements and filings; original data analysis; and firsthand observation. When we cite data, we identify its source and methodology whenever possible.

Multiple Source Verification

For news stories involving claims that are not publicly documented, we seek corroboration from at least two independent sources before publication. For breaking news where immediate corroboration is not possible, we clearly note what has been independently confirmed and what has not.

Anonymous Sources

We use anonymous sources sparingly and only when the information is of significant public interest and cannot be obtained on the record. When we rely on anonymous sources, we describe their position and basis of knowledge as specifically as possible without revealing their identity (e.g., “a senior executive at the company” or “a person with direct knowledge of the negotiations”).

Right of Response

When our reporting involves criticism of or negative claims about a company, individual, or product, we make reasonable efforts to contact the subject and offer an opportunity to respond before publication. Their response, or their decision not to respond, is noted in the article.

Content Types and Labeling

We clearly label our content so readers understand the nature of what they are reading:

News: Factual reporting on events, announcements, and developments. News articles present facts and attributable statements without editorial opinion.
Analysis: In-depth examination of trends, technologies, and market dynamics. Analysis pieces include interpretation and expert context clearly identified as such.
Opinion / Commentary: Pieces that express a viewpoint. These are clearly labeled and attributed to a named author.
Vendor Spotlight: Reviews and profiles of technology vendors serving the DSO market. These follow our vendor review methodology detailed below.
Sponsored Content: Content produced in collaboration with a paying partner. Always labeled with “Sponsored” or “Paid Partnership” designation and not written by our editorial team.

Corrections Policy

We take accuracy seriously and correct errors promptly and transparently. Our corrections policy is as follows:

Corrections: When we publish a factual error, we correct the article and append a clear correction notice at the top or bottom of the article stating what was changed and when. The original erroneous text is not silently deleted.
Clarifications: When an article is technically accurate but misleading or incomplete, we add a clarification note explaining the additional context.
Updates: When new information becomes available after publication, we update the article and note the update with a timestamp.
Retractions: In rare cases where an article’s central premise is found to be fundamentally flawed, we will retract the article and publish a notice explaining why.

To report an error or request a correction, please contact editorial@dsonews.ai with the subject line “Correction Request” and include the article URL and a description of the error.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Transparency about potential conflicts of interest is essential to maintaining reader trust. We adhere to the following disclosure practices:

Financial Relationships: If DSO News receives advertising revenue or sponsorship from a company that is the subject of editorial coverage, that relationship is disclosed within the article when it is material to the coverage.
Affiliate Links: If an article contains affiliate links or referral partnerships, this is disclosed prominently within the article.
Personal Interests: Editorial staff are required to disclose any personal financial interests in companies they cover, including stock ownership, consulting arrangements, or family relationships. Staff with material conflicts are recused from covering those entities.
Guest Contributors: Guest authors must disclose their professional affiliations, and any relationship they have with companies or products mentioned in their contributions.

Vendor Review Methodology

Our Vendor Spotlight coverage provides DSO leaders with objective assessments of the technology products and platforms serving the dental enterprise. To ensure these assessments are trustworthy, we follow a consistent methodology:

Evaluation Criteria

We evaluate vendors across a standard set of dimensions relevant to DSO buyers:

Product Capability: Core features, technical architecture, and performance relative to stated claims
DSO Fit: Suitability for multi-location dental operations, including scalability, centralized management, and enterprise-grade functionality
Integration Ecosystem: Compatibility with major practice management systems, imaging platforms, and other dental technology infrastructure
Implementation and Support: Onboarding process, training resources, customer support quality, and typical deployment timelines
Evidence and Validation: Published research, clinical validation, regulatory clearances, and documented customer outcomes
Pricing Transparency: Clarity and fairness of pricing models for multi-location buyers
Company Viability: Funding, leadership, market position, and long-term sustainability

Review Process

Research: We begin with independent research on the vendor, its products, and its market position using publicly available information, regulatory filings, and industry data.
Vendor Briefing: We invite the vendor to provide a product demonstration and respond to a standard set of questions. Vendors are not charged for this briefing.
Customer Input: We seek feedback from DSO operators who have deployed the product, through interviews or published case studies.
Expert Analysis: Our editorial team evaluates the product against our standard criteria, incorporating all gathered information.
Fact-Check and Review: Before publication, the vendor is given the opportunity to review the article for factual accuracy only. The vendor has no input on editorial conclusions, tone, or framing.

Important Disclosures for Vendor Reviews

Vendors cannot pay for a review or influence its outcome
If a reviewed vendor is also an advertiser, that relationship is disclosed within the review
We disclose if a product demo was conducted using vendor-provided environments versus independent testing
All vendor reviews include a clear date of evaluation, as products evolve over time

AI-Assisted Content

As a publication covering AI, we believe in transparency about our own use of the technology. When AI tools are used to assist in content production — such as research, data analysis, or initial drafting — we disclose this to readers. All AI-assisted content is reviewed, verified, and edited by human editors before publication. The editorial judgment, sourcing, and final accountability for every article rests with our human editorial team.

Commitment to Our Readers

These guidelines represent our commitment to the DSO leaders who rely on us for information that shapes their strategic decisions. We understand that in a market with significant vendor noise and limited independent analysis, trust must be earned through consistent practice — not just stated intention.

We welcome feedback on our editorial practices. If you believe we have fallen short of these standards, or if you have suggestions for how we can improve, please contact us at editorial@dsonews.ai.

These editorial guidelines are reviewed and updated periodically. Last reviewed: April 2026.