91

Please consent to cookies to view content.

` ); iframeDoc.close(); } } } } } const observer = new MutationObserver(switchSrc); observer.observe(document.documentElement, { childList: true, subtree: true, }); })(); Review Reporting: Guidance for Authors | 91 Author Academy

91

Review Reporting: Guidance for Authors

91 Resources Team

91 Resources author making announcement - review reporting guidance for authors

We have updated ourreview reportingguidelinesIn line with therecently published Fake and IncentivisedReviewspolicy.TheUK Competition and Markets Authority(CMA)isclear initsguidance that reviews should reflect genuine customer feedback,freely given and not influenced or pressured, including through attempts to have reviews removed.This guidance has beenwrittenwith this in mind.

Youretainthe ability to report a review;however,the criteria for removalhasbeen clarified in line with CMA guidance.You may find that reviews thatwouldpreviouslyhavebeen removed will now remainpublic.

This approach supports:

  • Genuine customer feedback

  • Balanced representation of experiences

  • Compliance with CMA expectations

The key principle throughout this guidancecan be simplifiedas:

Reviews are assessed based on whether they reflect a genuine customer experience,andnotonwhether the author agrees with the feedback or believes it to be fair.

Reviews that may be removed

1.Fake ornon-genuinereviews

Please refer to the Fake and IncentivisedReviews policy for full definitions. In short, we may remove reviews that are not based on a genuine customer experience.

Toreport a fake or non-genuine review, you must provide:

  • A clear explanation of why you believe the review is not genuine

  • Supportingevidence

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated.

2.Incentivised Reviews

Please refer to the Fake and IncentivisedReviews policy for full definitions.

We do not allow incentivised reviews in any form.

Toreportanincentivised review, you must provide:

  • A clear explanation of why you believe the review was incentivised

  • Supportingevidence

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated.

3.Factually InaccurateReviews

This is one of the most misunderstoodreasons for reporting resource reviews.Please read the below information carefully.

We will only consider claims about factually inaccurate reviews where the claim is objective and there is no reasonable ambiguity.

Toreport a factually inaccurate review, you must provide:

  • The exact statement(s) in the reviewthatyou believeto befactually incorrect

  • A clear explanation of why the statement isobjectively inaccurate, withevidence

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated.

Important requirement for authors

Do not edit or replace the resource or make any amendments to the upload until we have concluded investigations. Thisincludes but is not limited to the files themselves, the title, description or previews, and any tagging.

If changes are made before we review the issue:

  • We cannot reliablydeterminewhat the buyer originally received

  • We cannot confirm whether the issue existed

  • We may, as a result,be unable to support a removal request

Where removal may be considered:

  • Whenareview makes a definitive factual statement that is clearlyand objectivelyincorrect

  • Whenareview claims thatcontentisabsent where it is clearly present

  • Whenaclaimmadein a reviewcannotreasonably beexplained by interpretation or userexperience,including when the user interpretation or experience maybeseenaswrong or unfair

It is important torecognise that users may interpret contentindifferentways.If areviewisbased on reasonable interpretationof the title,descriptionor content, it is not considered inaccurate and will not be removed.

For example,a’12-page’resource maycontain12 pages in total, including cover and credits pages. If a reviewer perceives that fewer pagescontaincore content and comments accordingly, this is considered a difference in interpretation, not a factual inaccuracy.

Where removal will not be considered:

  • Quality based claims: Statements about level of detail, depth, or quality are treated as subjective opinions, not factual claims.

  • Expectation vs listing clarity: Reviews based on unmet expectations will not be treated as factually inaccurate, even where the listing is technically correct.

  • Perceptionsignals: Where a review uses ambiguous language, this will be treated as subjectiveperceptionrather than a definitive factual claim.

Where there is reasonable ambiguity between a factual claim and userperception, we will default to treating the review as a genuine experience and it will remain.

Mixed Reviews

Where a reviewcontainsboth disputed and undisputed elements, the review will remain unless the central claim is clearly and demonstrably false and materially misleading.

A single contested point does not invalidate a review that otherwise reflects genuine experience.

4.Legal Violations

We may remove reviews that breach legal or safety standards. These include:

  • Defamationof character(false or misleadingallegationspresented as fact without evidence)

  • Use of hatespeech,harassmentor profanities

  • Disclosure of personal or confidential information

  • Illegal content

To report a review for a legal violation, you must provide:

  • The exact statement(s) in the review that you believe breaches a legal or safety standard

  • A clear explanation of why the statement(s)breaches legal or safety standards

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated.

Note: Criticism of quality, value or usefulness is notconsidereddefamation.

5.Irrelevant or DuplicateReviews

We may remove:

  • Reviews unrelated to the resource

  • Reviews thatincludespam or promotional content

  • Duplicatereviewsubmissions

To reportanirrelevant or duplicate review, you must provide:

  • The exact statement(s) in the review that you believe is duplicated or irrelevant.

  • Supporting evidence

6.UserTechnical Issues

If auser reports a technical issueand you believe that the error is a fault of the user, please report this to us.

Where we can clearly verify thatanissueraised in a reviewwasnot caused byan author errorandthatthe resource is technically sound, we may remove the review.

Important requirement for authors

Do not edit or replace the resource or make any amendments to the upload until we have concluded investigations. Thisincludes but is not limited to the files themselves, the title, description or previews, and any tagging.

If changes are made before we review the issue:

  • We cannot reliablydeterminewhat the buyer originally received

  • We cannot confirm whether the issue existed

  • We may, as a result,be unable to support a removal request

Reviews that we will not remove

We do not remove reviewsthatarewholly:

  • Negative or criticalin a way that the authordisagrees with

  • Based on opinion

  • About value or price

  • About level of detail or quality

  • Based on reasonable expectations not being met

  • About usability

  • Based onthe user’sreasonablemisunderstanding

  • Outdated butaccurateat the time(e.g.issue has been fixed)

Note: Reviews that are brief or lacking constructive detail will not be removed. There is no obligation for reviewers to provide fully detailed constructive feedback.

Common authormisconceptions

  • “This review is unfair” -Not removed

This is an unsubstantiated claim. You would need to explain why you believe the review breaches our policy and provide supporting evidence.

Fairness is subjective, and reviews are expected to reflect individual user experiences, which may vary.

  • “The reviewer has not used the resource asintended” - Not removed

We do not remove reviews based on how a user has engaged with a resource. Differences in interpretation and usage form part of genuine user experience.

  • “It’s been fixed now” -Not removed

The review is genuine and reflects the user experience at the time that it was left. Removing such reviews would bedeemedas suppressing feedback.We will not remove these reviews.

  • “Other customers are happy” -Not removed

User experience is expected to vary. Other users being happy with the resource does not invalidate the experience of this user.

  • “This will impact my sales” -Not removed

Commercial impact is not a moderation factor. Reviews must reflect genuine customer experience and should not be removed because they may affect sales.

  • “This review is misleading” - Not removed

You must clearlydemonstratewhich specific factual statementin the reviewismisleadingand provide supporting evidence. Disagreement, interpretation, or negativeperceptiondoes not make a review misleading.

Responding to feedback

If a review cannot be removed, we recommend that you take the following steps:

Respond Constructively

  • Clarify any misunderstanding

  • Provide factual context

  • Acknowledge feedback professionally

  • Highlight any updates or improvements

Avoid

  • Challenging or dismissing the reviewer

  • Suggesting the reviewer is incorrect in a confrontational way

  • Requestingthat the reviewer remove the review; this is a violation of CMA guidelines

Example response

Thank you for your review and for sharing your experience with this resource.

I appreciate all feedback and I am sorry to hear that the resource did not fully meet your needs. To help future users, I would like to clarify that [insert neutral factual information about the resource].

I understand that different users may have different expectations and teaching contexts, and I value the insight your feedback provides. I will consider your comments as part of my ongoing efforts to improve my resources.

Thank you for taking the time to leave a review.