Editorial Policy & Standards

Sourcing and accuracy#

Every piece we publish is built on evidence we can point to. We prioritise primary sources — legislation and regulator guidance, central-bank and tax-authority data, company filings, and peer-reviewed academic research — over other outlets' summaries. Where we rely on a study, we look at its methodology and sample, not just the press release.

Numbers get particular scrutiny. Contribution limits, tax bands, interest rates, and historical returns are checked against the original source and dated, because a figure that is accurate today can quietly go stale. We avoid the false precision of invented statistics; when an honest answer is a range, we give a range.

We distinguish clearly between what is established fact, what is expert consensus, and what is our own analysis or opinion. A reader should always be able to tell which of the three they are reading.

How each piece is checked#

MyFinanceBoost is written and self-edited by one person: Ivan Mártir, a personal-finance enthusiast with no formal qualifications or credentials. Drafts do not go straight to the public — each is edited for accuracy and clarity and read back against its primary sources before publication. There is no professional reviewer and no outside sign-off; this is one enthusiast's independent research and opinion, not financial advice.

Self-editing means checking that every claim is backed by a source that can be cited, that risks are stated as prominently as potential benefits, and that guidance written with one country in mind does not mislead readers elsewhere. If a claim cannot be backed up, it is cut or rewritten rather than hedged with vague language.

Authorship is transparent. Every article is written by Ivan Mártir and carries his name, so you always know exactly who stands behind the work — one enthusiast sharing his own research, not a qualified professional.

Corrections and updates#

We will get things wrong from time to time, and when we do we fix them openly. Substantive corrections — anything that changes the meaning or the practical takeaway — are made promptly and noted, so readers can see what changed and when.

Evergreen guides are living documents. We revisit them on a schedule and after major rule changes, refreshing figures and the last-reviewed date rather than letting old content drift out of accuracy.

If you believe we have published something inaccurate, tell us at hello@myfinanceboost.com. We take reader corrections seriously and would far rather hear about a mistake from you than leave it standing.

• Meaning-changing errors are corrected promptly, not quietly overwritten.
• Each page shows when it was last updated or reviewed.
• Reader-flagged errors are investigated and, where confirmed, fixed and noted.

Independence from advertisers#

Our revenue and our recommendations are kept apart on purpose. Advertising — including the Google AdSense units on our pages — is sold and served separately from editorial. Advertisers cannot commission articles, preview them before publication, or earn more favourable coverage by spending more.

We do not tune ratings, rankings, or conclusions to please a sponsor, and we are willing to write critically about products and companies that advertise on the site or pay us affiliate commissions. If we ever find we cannot cover a subject independently, we will not cover it at all.

Affiliate links and disclosure#

Some of our links are affiliate links, which means we may earn a commission if you open an account or buy a product after clicking, at no additional cost to you. This is a common way for finance publications to fund independent work, and we use it under strict limits.

A product earns its place in our coverage on the merits first. The existence of a commission never decides whether we include, recommend, or rank it, and comparable options that carry no affiliate arrangement are weighed on equal footing. Where a page contains affiliate links, we disclose that clearly so you are never left guessing about our incentives.

The principle is simple: a recommendation should reflect our honest assessment, not the size of a payout. Where those two ever pull in different directions, the assessment wins.