Tier 1

University-affiliated and accredited providers

Cambridge University Press & Assessment, Harvard Business School Online, Oxford Saïd, MIT Open Learning, and equivalent institutions. Eligibility is automatic on accreditation status. Each course still passes the four-check process described in How We Curate.

Tier 2

Established commercial platforms

Pluralsight, Educative, Pearson, EdX, Coursera, and equivalent. Eligibility requires a published instructor vetting process, transparent pricing, a refund policy, and stable course URLs. Pluralsight publishes its 5.5% author acceptance rate, for example. Platforms that change catalogues silently or hide instructor credentials do not qualify.

Tier 3

UK-recognised qualification providers

Qualifi, Ofqual-recognised diploma routes, and other UK regulated qualification providers. Eligibility requires current Ofqual or comparable recognition, a published syllabus, and a clear awarding body. The course page must state the qualification level (RQF Level 3, 5, 7, or equivalent) and the awarding body’s name.

Disqualifiers (any tier)

A provider is rejected, regardless of tier, if any of the following apply. Hidden instructor identities or unverifiable credentials. No refund mechanism. Materially outdated content (older than three years for tooling and cloud topics). A pattern of customer complaints about access, certificate fraud, or undisclosed fees. Any indication of paid-for review manipulation on third-party sites.

“Write what you would tell a colleague who asked. Specific. Honest. Opinion-bearing. The reader can spot a generic course description from across the room.”

AIU Reviewer Brief, 2026

Language

British English, professional register

All AIU content uses British spellings. Programme, organise, behaviour, centre. No American spellings. The register is professional, written for working adults rather than first-time learners. We do not write for students who need to be cheered along.

Tone

Honest, specific, opinion-bearing

A reviewer takes a position. The verdict says what the course does well and what it does not. Generic descriptions of the kind that read like a content management system populated them automatically are rejected at editorial review and rewritten.

Mandatory sections

The page template is fixed

Every course page must contain, in this order: opening summary, AIU.ac Verdict, “What this course covers”, “Who is this course for?” (split into “Ideal for” and “May not suit”), frequently asked questions, instructor credibility note, last verified date, and the labelled affiliate link. Sections cannot be omitted to lift conversion. The “May not suit” section is mandatory and stays even when it costs us a sale.

Word count

Long enough to inform, short enough to scan

Course pages target 600 to 900 words of editorial content. Comparison guides and pillar articles target 1,500 to 2,500. Articles longer than 2,500 words are split into a series. We do not pad pages to hit a word count target, and we do not strip them to hit a brevity target.

Pre-publication

Live-page verification

Before a course page goes live, the reviewer cross-checks every factual claim against the live provider page. Course duration. Instructor name. Curriculum modules. Pricing structure. Refund policy. Certification offered. If a claim cannot be verified on the provider’s own page or through a direct provider response, the claim is removed.

Editorial review

Editor-in-Chief approval

No course page publishes without Editor-in-Chief sign-off. The editor checks the verdict against the curriculum, validates the “May not suit” reasoning, and confirms the affiliate disclosure is in place. Pages that fail editorial review are returned to the reviewer with specific change requests.

Post-publication

Re-verification cadence

Tech-skill courses are re-verified every six months. Certification-track courses every 12 months, or sooner if the certification body changes the exam blueprint. Foundational courses every 18 months. The “Last verified by AIU.ac” date moves only when a reviewer has re-checked the live provider page. The full cadence is documented in How We Curate.

Authorship conflict

Reviewers do not assess their own courses

A reviewer who has authored, co-authored, or contributed to a course does not write the AIU page on that course. The conflict is too direct. The page is assigned to a different reviewer with no commercial or authorship link to the material.

Financial conflict

Beyond standard affiliate

A reviewer with a financial stake beyond the standard AIU affiliate relationship cannot review the relevant course. Equity in the provider, paid consulting work for the provider, or a personal commission arrangement outside the AIU programme all qualify. The reviewer must declare any such relationship and the assignment goes to someone else.

Personal conflict

Close ties to instructors

A reviewer who is a close colleague, former employer, or family member of the instructor cannot review the course. Professional acquaintance is not a conflict on its own. A working or personal relationship is. The reviewer self-declares. The editor adjudicates.

Editor-in-Chief conflict

Recusal and external review

When the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict (for example, a course taught by a colleague at XEROTECH AI, or a programme at an institution where the editor holds a fellowship or advisory role), the editor recuses and a senior reviewer signs off. The conflict is noted on the page itself.

Errors get fixed openly. When a correction is requested, we log the request, investigate within five working days, and respond. Valid corrections are applied to the page with a dated correction note appended at the bottom. The original error is not silently overwritten.

Material corrections (a wrong instructor, a wrong qualification level, a wrong price tier) are flagged in the page footer with the correction date. Trivial corrections (typos, broken links) are fixed without a public note. The threshold is whether a reasonable reader’s decision could have been affected by the error. If yes, the correction is logged publicly.

Send corrections to editor@aiu.ac.

An AI education company that pretends not to use AI tools would not be credible. We use AI tools, including the same models we write about, as drafting and research aids. We do not use them as authors.

Every page on AIU.ac is written, edited, and approved by a named human reviewer and the Editor-in-Chief. AI tools may help with research, draft scaffolding, fact-checking, and copy-editing. They do not replace the four-check process. They do not replace the verdict. They do not replace human judgement on whether a course is worth a reader’s money and time.

Pages produced primarily by AI without human editorial judgement do not appear on AIU.ac. If we ever publish AI-generated content as a stated experiment, the page will say so at the top.

This document is reviewed every six months and on any material change to our editorial process. The version number, last update date, and a short change log are recorded at the bottom of the page.

Material changes (new disclosure rules, new conflict criteria, changes to the page template) are announced before they take effect. We will not move the rulebook silently.

Noman Shah, FBCS, PMP

Editor-in-Chief, AIU.ac · Founder & President, Artificial Intelligence University

These standards are owned and enforced by me. I am the founder of XEROTECH AI. I hold 9 patents in security and AI infrastructure, with prior art cited by Apple, IBM, Amazon, Lenovo, Citrix, Morgan Stanley, and Ruger. I sit on the Harvard Business Review Advisory Council and judge the NASA Conrad Challenge. I write on AI ethics for Entrepreneur.com and on AI sovereignty at Drop Silence.

If a contributor breaches these standards, I am the person who decides what happens next. If you believe AIU has departed from its own rules, you can write to me directly.

nomanshah.com · ORCID · Google Scholar · LinkedIn