Editorial Standards
VapeExperts is an independent publication. We produce reviews, news, and guides to help cannabis consumers make informed decisions. These standards govern how we work.
Last reviewed .
Independence
No manufacturer has ever paid for, previewed, or influenced a review or news article on this site. Our revenue comes from affiliate commissions on retailer links. Retailers cannot influence scores, rankings, or coverage decisions.
We Buy Our Own
We buy every vaporizer we review at retail, the same way you would. No review units, no loaners and nothing sent back to a maker afterwards.
Transparency
Every news article cites its sources with direct links. Our reviews state how we tested, and all of them follow the method on our How we test page. Every page with affiliate links carries a disclosure notice. We show our work.
Accuracy
We verify claims against primary sources before publishing. Market data comes from named research firms. Policy reporting cites official government documents. Product specs are confirmed against manufacturer documentation.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we fix it promptly and visibly. Corrected articles carry a dated correction notice at the top explaining what changed and why. We never silently edit published claims. Everyday changes, such as re-tests, rewrites and new comparisons, go in the dated update log on each review.
Separation of Coverage
Our news reporting is factual and impartial. Opinion and analysis pieces are clearly labeled with distinct badges. Deal coverage discloses affiliate relationships. Readers always know what type of content they are reading.
Community Threads
Our culture pieces start from conversations on Reddit, YouTube and forums. We read those threads without posting in them, quote Reddit comments only briefly and with attribution, paraphrase everyone else, and take no fact, number or price from a thread. Every take links the conversation it started from.
Accountability
Every article carries a byline. We publish under pen names due to the legal and professional risks of working in cannabis, and we are transparent about that choice. The expertise behind each byline is real. Readers can report errors directly via email, and we answer every correction request.
Our Methodology
Vaporizer testing: Every vaporizer is bought at retail price and used daily for at least 14 days. We check the temperature a vape reports against an external thermocouple, time the heat-up with a stopwatch, and count full sessions per charge in a battery-cycle run. We have tested 50+ vaporizers to date.
Scoring: Each vape gets a 0 to 10 score in five categories: vapor quality (30%), ease of use (20%), value (20%), build quality (15%) and portability or features (15%). The overall score is the plain weighted mean with no editorial adjustment. See a worked example.
Where to check our work: The How we tested box on a review lists what we checked on that vape. Where we ran instrument checks, an Our measurements table lists heat-up time, thermocouple readings against the set temperature and sessions per charge, with the date we measured. Every review keeps a dated update log, so you can see what changed and when (see the Fenix 2 MAX review).
Price tracking: We monitor prices daily across 43+ authorized retailers in 7 countries. Price data is cached and audited weekly for accuracy.
News reporting: Industry and policy articles cite primary sources (research reports, government documents, official statements). We contact manufacturers and researchers directly when possible. All sources are listed with links at the end of every article.
Contact Us
To report an error, request a correction, or ask about our editorial process:
- Corrections: corrections@vapeexperts.com
- General: hello@vapeexperts.com