Last Updated: July 2026
MTG Proxy Reviews publishes company reviews, comparisons, technical guides, and responsible-use information related to Magic: The Gathering proxy cards and custom card printing.
Our goal is to help readers understand what they are ordering, compare realistic tradeoffs, and choose services that fit their needs. This policy explains how we develop content, disclose relationships, evaluate sources, handle company participation, and correct mistakes.
Editorial Leadership
MTG Proxy Reviews is edited by Anthony Dennis, a longtime journalist and editor with experience covering video games, board games, trading card games, and the broader games industry.
The editor is responsible for maintaining the site’s standards for:
- Accuracy
- Clarity
- Fairness
- Sourcing
- Disclosure
- Review consistency
- Corrections
- Meaningful content updates
Articles may be written or researched by additional contributors, but published editorial content is reviewed under the standards described on this page.
Our Editorial Principles
Readers Come First
Our primary responsibility is to give readers useful and understandable information.
Articles should help someone:
- Compare services
- Understand card quality
- Prepare an order
- Avoid preventable mistakes
- Evaluate price and value
- Use proxy cards responsibly
Content should not exist solely to target a keyword, promote a related company, or repeat marketing claims.
Evidence and Opinion Should Be Distinguishable
Reviews include both factual observations and editorial judgments.
Factual statements may include:
- Published prices
- Card measurements
- Shipping dates
- Website features
- Written policies
- Visible print or cutting defects
- Documented customer-service correspondence
Editorial judgments may include:
- Whether the quality justifies the price
- Which service is best for a particular use
- Whether an ordering process is unnecessarily difficult
- How serious a production issue is
- Whether the overall experience deserves a recommendation
Opinions should be supported with reasoning. We do not expect every reader or company to agree with every conclusion.
Limitations Should Be Disclosed
The strength of a conclusion depends on the strength of the evidence.
An article should identify whether it is based on:
- A complete hands-on order
- In-hand samples
- A combination of direct and secondary evidence
- Website and policy research
- Historical samples
- Customer reports
We do not present a research-only review as though it were a current hands-on product test.
Different Buyers Have Different Priorities
A service can be a strong choice for one buyer and a poor choice for another.
Our recommendations may differ depending on:
- Order size
- Budget
- Desired card quality
- Customization needs
- Ordering experience
- Turnaround requirements
- Whether the cards are for a full deck, Cube, staples, tokens, or another project
We try to explain these distinctions rather than forcing every service into one universal ranking.
Review Standards
Company reviews should follow the published Review Methodology whenever the available evidence permits.
Reviews may consider:
- Print quality
- Card construction
- Cutting and centering
- Pricing and value
- Customer care
- Website and ordering tools
Each review should also include an appropriate testing-status label.
When evidence is insufficient for a category, we may leave it unscored rather than assigning a speculative rating.
Sources and Research
We prefer direct and primary evidence when it is reasonably available.
Sources may include:
- Physical products
- Original photographs
- Measurements
- Order confirmations
- Shipping records
- Support correspondence
- Company policies
- Company representatives
- Current pricing pages
- Archived website pages
- Public legal or business records
- Credible reporting
- Clearly identified customer reports
Secondary sources are evaluated based on their relevance, specificity, credibility, and proximity to the events being described.
Anonymous claims, unsourced accusations, and isolated social-media comments are not treated as established facts simply because they are negative or widely repeated.
Company Claims
A company’s description of its materials, production methods, turnaround, inventory, or policies is treated as a company claim unless we have independently verified it.
We may quote or summarize company claims when they are relevant, but the article should not blur the difference between:
- What the company says
- What we observed
- What outside customers reported
- What we concluded
Company Responses
Companies may contact MTG Proxy Reviews to:
- Correct factual information
- Clarify a policy
- Explain a production change
- Provide documentation
- Respond to criticism
- Request that an outdated review be reconsidered
We may include a concise company response when it adds meaningful context.
Companies do not receive control over:
- Scores
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Headline wording
- Publication timing
- Whether criticism is included
We may provide a company with the opportunity to verify specific factual details before publication, particularly in articles involving serious allegations. This is not the same as giving the company editorial approval.
Review Samples and Free Products
We may review products that were:
- Purchased by MTG Proxy Reviews
- Purchased by a related company or team member
- Supplied by a reader
- Supplied by the reviewed company
- Obtained through another clearly identified source
When a company provides free products or other meaningful consideration, that relationship should be disclosed in the article.
Receiving a free sample does not guarantee coverage or a favorable conclusion.
Ownership and Commercial Relationships
MTG Proxy Reviews may cover companies that have an ownership, management, affiliate, advertising, or other commercial relationship with the site or its owners.
Those relationships are material context and should be disclosed clearly near the beginning of the relevant article.
A related company may still be reviewed or recommended when the evidence supports the conclusion. However:
- It should be evaluated under the same published methodology.
- Weaknesses should not be omitted because of the relationship.
- The relationship should not be hidden in a general footer.
- Readers should not have to search for the disclosure.
- Commercial involvement should not determine the score.
Where appropriate, the disclosure should explain the nature of the relationship rather than relying on vague language such as “we may earn compensation.”
Affiliate Links and Advertising
Some pages may contain affiliate links or advertising.
When an affiliate relationship exists, it should be disclosed clearly. An affiliate relationship means the site may receive compensation if a reader makes a purchase through a qualifying link.
Affiliate participation or advertising does not guarantee:
- Positive coverage
- A higher score
- Inclusion in a comparison
- A recommendation
- Removal of criticism
Sponsored content, if published, should be identified as sponsored and should not be presented as an independent product review.
No Pay-for-Placement Rankings
Companies cannot purchase a higher editorial score or a better position in an editorial ranking.
Advertising placements and sponsored messages should be visually and editorially distinguishable from reviews, comparisons, and other independent editorial content.
Conflicts of Interest
Writers and editors should disclose relationships that could reasonably affect how readers interpret an article.
These may include:
- Ownership interests
- Employment
- Management relationships
- Affiliate compensation
- Paid consulting
- Free products
- Advertising relationships
- Close personal or professional relationships
The existence of a conflict does not always prevent publication. It does require clear disclosure and additional editorial care.
Artificial Intelligence and Editorial Tools
Editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, may be used to assist with tasks such as:
- Organizing research
- Summarizing source material
- Developing outlines
- Identifying inconsistencies
- Editing for clarity
- Formatting data
AI-generated output is not treated as a factual source.
Published articles should be reviewed by a human editor. Material claims, measurements, prices, policies, and company-specific conclusions should be checked against appropriate evidence before publication.
The editorial team remains responsible for the final content regardless of which tools assisted in its preparation.
Anonymous Sources and Confidential Information
We may consider information from a confidential source when:
- The source is in a position to know the information
- The issue is important to readers
- Public identification could expose the source to meaningful harm
- The information can be independently supported where possible
Anonymous sourcing should be used sparingly. We do not publish private personal information merely because it was provided by a customer, employee, competitor, or company representative.
Corrections Policy
Accuracy matters more than preserving the original wording of an article.
When we identify an error, we correct it according to its significance.
Minor Corrections
Minor corrections include:
- Typographical errors
- Grammar mistakes
- Broken links
- Formatting problems
- Small wording changes that do not alter the meaning
- Corrections to obvious spelling or capitalization errors
These changes may be made without a separate correction notice.
Factual Corrections
A factual correction is appropriate when an article contains inaccurate information about matters such as:
- Pricing
- Policies
- Ownership
- Product specifications
- Shipping
- Company history
- Website features
- Dates
- Statements made by a company or individual
When the error meaningfully affected the article, we should add an editor’s note explaining what was corrected.
Material Corrections
A material correction is required when an error affected:
- A category score
- The overall rating
- A recommendation
- The characterization of a company’s conduct
- A central conclusion
- A reader’s likely purchasing decision
Material corrections should be identified clearly in the article. The notice should explain the nature of the change without unnecessarily repeating the original error.
Substantial Revisions
An article may require substantial revision when:
- A company changes its production process
- New hands-on testing contradicts an older conclusion
- The reviewed product generation is no longer sold
- Better documentation becomes available
- Several sections have become outdated
- The original article no longer fairly represents the company or product
Substantial revisions should include an updated date and, where useful, an editor’s note summarizing the change.
Retractions and Removal
Retraction or removal may be appropriate when:
- The central evidence cannot be verified
- An article is fundamentally inaccurate
- The content creates an unjustifiable legal or privacy risk
- The article was published under false pretenses
- Correction would not adequately repair the problem
Whenever practical, a retraction notice is preferable to silently removing a published article that has already influenced readers.
Removal is not appropriate merely because a company dislikes a negative conclusion.
Score Changes
Scores may change when new evidence materially affects the evaluation.
Examples include:
- A new test order
- A change in materials
- Improved or worsened cutting
- A major pricing change
- A redesigned ordering system
- A demonstrated change in customer support
- Evidence that the original sample was not representative
We do not automatically increase a score because a company requests it or provides new marketing language.
Updated Dates
An article’s “Last Updated” date should change only when the page receives a meaningful editorial update.
Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting, or link changes generally do not justify presenting an article as newly updated.
How to Request a Correction
Readers and companies may submit correction requests through our Contact page.
Please include:
- The article URL
- The exact statement in question
- A clear explanation of the problem
- Supporting evidence
- The correct information, when known
- Contact information for follow-up questions
We review specific, evidence-based requests. We may not respond individually to vague complaints, unsupported demands, or requests that simply disagree with an opinion or score.
Editorial Independence
Our goal is not to avoid every commercial relationship. It is to make those relationships visible and prevent them from controlling editorial conclusions.
Readers should be able to understand:
- What evidence supports a review
- How the score was calculated
- Whether the product was physically tested
- Whether a commercial relationship exists
- What limitations apply
- Why the editor reached the stated conclusion
That transparency is central to the credibility of MTG Proxy Reviews.