Research Methodology and Institutional Classification Standards

A1. Purpose and Research Objectives

The Archive Ethics Project (AEP) is an independent research initiative dedicated to understanding and improving the ethical standards governing historical news coverage, digital archives, and search-engine discoverability.

The Project conducts systematic research into the policies and practices of professional news organizations, student media, and journalism institutions.

Our research seeks to answer five fundamental questions:

1. How many news organizations maintain written policies governing corrections, updates, removal, anonymization, and search-engine de-indexing of historical content?
2. How many make those policies publicly accessible?
3. What remedies do their policies permit, prohibit, or evaluate individually?
4. How consistently and transparently do organizations communicate and apply their standards?
5. How are editorial policies evolving in response to technological developments, changing legal circumstances, and concerns about lasting reputational harm?

Our objective is to document institutional practices accurately, identify gaps in transparency, and provide resources that support informed editorial decision-making.

The Project does not presume that any particular policy outcome is appropriate for every publication or circumstance.

A2. Research Population and Scope

Our research initially focuses on U.S.-based institutions in three categories.

A. Student news organizations

Student-operated newspapers, digital publications, and other news outlets affiliated with colleges and universities.

B. Professional news organizations

Local, regional, and national newsrooms, including newspapers, digital-first publications, and other organizations producing original journalism.

C. Journalism and professional organizations

Press associations, journalism ethics organizations, educational institutions, and professional bodies that publish relevant guidance or influence editorial standards.

Each publication is evaluated independently unless a common governing editorial policy is documented.

A university’s institutional policy must not be attributed to a student publication without evidence that it governs that publication.

The research database will distinguish active organizations from historical, inactive, merged, and discontinued publications.

A3. Institutional Identification and Research Procedures

Institutions will be identified through publicly available directories, academic records, professional association listings, verified publication websites, and other documented sources.

The Project may use automated tools to identify potential institutions and relevant source material. All substantive public classifications must be supported by verifiable evidence.

Researchers will follow a standardized discovery procedure:

1. Verify the publication’s identity, active status, website, and editorial affiliation.
2. Review publicly available editorial policies, ethics statements, correction procedures, archive notices, and frequently asked questions.
3. Search the publication’s website and relevant external search indexes for policies or statements regarding historical coverage.
4. Examine relevant published statements, professional guidance, and archived versions where appropriate.
5. Record available evidence, source URLs, relevant publication dates, and verification dates.
6. Contact the institution when material questions remain unresolved.

Researchers will distinguish current policies from superseded policies and historical practices.

A failure to locate a policy does not establish that no policy exists.

A4. Institutional Classification Framework

Each institution will be evaluated across separate dimensions. Classifications must reflect documented evidence, not assumptions about institutional intent.

A4.1 Policy transparency

• Publicly documented: A relevant written policy is publicly accessible and verified.
• Internally documented: An authorized representative confirms a written policy exists, but it is not publicly available.
• Informal practice confirmed: An authorized representative describes an established practice without confirming a written policy.
• No policy confirmed: An authorized representative explicitly confirms that no applicable policy exists.
• No public policy located: A standardized search was completed without finding a relevant public policy.
• Unverified: Available evidence is insufficient to determine policy status.

A4.2 Editorial remedies

The following remedies will be evaluated independently:

• Corrections or factual clarifications.
• Updates reflecting subsequent developments.
• Editor’s notes or contextual annotations.
• Anonymization or selective redaction.
• Search-engine de-indexing while retaining accessible archived content.
• Removal of material from the publication’s website.
• Other remedies expressly identified by the institution.

Each remedy will receive one of four classifications:

Permitted, considered case by case, prohibited, or not established by available evidence.

An institution may receive different classifications for different remedies.

A4.3 Editorial decision-making

Where documented, the Project will identify:

• The person or body authorized to decide requests.
• The role of editorial advisers, publishers, and institutional administrators.
• Required documentation or review criteria.
• Available reconsideration or appeal procedures.
• Published response expectations.

Unknown information must remain explicitly identified as unknown.

A5. Evidentiary Standards

The Project will prioritize evidence using the following hierarchy:

Primary evidence: Current policies, official editorial standards, and other directly published institutional documents.

Verified institutional statements: Written or recorded statements made by authorized representatives and obtained under clear attribution terms.

Supporting evidence: Credible third-party reporting, archived policy versions, documented editorial decisions, and relevant professional guidance.

Technical observations: Website metadata, indexing directives, archived content differences, and other technical findings.

Technical observations may establish that a change occurred. They do not, without supporting evidence, establish why it occurred or whether it resulted from an editorial decision.

Similarly, documented exceptions to an archival policy do not necessarily demonstrate misconduct or inconsistent application. The applicable policy version, scope, authority, and circumstances must first be examined.

Substantive claims must be traceable to identifiable evidence. Unsupported assumptions and speculative conclusions are excluded from institutional classifications.

A6. Institutional Outreach and Verification

The Project will maintain a standardized institutional outreach program.

Organizations without sufficient published information will be invited to clarify their policies and practices.

The questionnaire will address:

1. Whether an applicable written policy exists and whether it is publicly available.
2. Which historical-content remedies are expressly permitted, prohibited, or considered individually.
3. Who exercises final editorial decision-making authority.
4. What criteria govern decisions and whether a documented review process exists.
5. Whether the organization wishes to provide a public policy link, official statement, or clarification.

Institutions will be informed of the Project’s research purpose, intended publication practices, and procedures for correcting their profiles.

The standard outreach process will allow approximately ten business days for an initial response, followed by one reminder and an additional ten business days.

A failure to respond may be documented as No response received, provided a reasonable attempt to reach the appropriate contact was made. It must never be interpreted as opposition to de-indexing, evidence of unethical conduct, or confirmation that no policy exists.

Nonpublic correspondence will be attributed or quoted only under clearly communicated and agreed attribution terms.

Institutions may provide updated information at any time.

A7. Quality Assurance and Research Independence

The Project will apply consistent classification rules regardless of an institution’s size, reputation, editorial position, or prior relationship with Project personnel.

Each research record will identify its evidence, date of verification, classification rationale, and review status.

Materially disputed findings and classifications involving potential conflicts of interest will require independent review before publication of interpretive conclusions.

Where independent review is unavailable, the Project may publish clearly sourced factual information but will withhold contested evaluative conclusions until appropriate review is completed.

Researchers must disclose relevant personal, financial, professional, or institutional conflicts.

Artificial intelligence and automated research tools may assist discovery, extraction, and preliminary classification. They must not serve as the sole authority for published findings.

Human verification is required for substantive institutional claims.

A8. Data Collection and Research Transparency

The Project will maintain structured records containing, where applicable:

• A unique publication or institution identifier.
• Institution and publication names.
• Publication type and editorial affiliation.
• Applicable policy classifications.
• Supporting source links and verification dates.
• Outreach and response status.
• Research and independent-review status.
• Relevant policy changes and historical versions.

The Project will make its classification framework, questionnaire, inclusion criteria, and methodological revisions publicly accessible.

Research publications will disclose the population covered, observation period, number of institutions evaluated, number contacted, response rate, and relevant limitations.

Findings will distinguish verified institutional practices from estimates, hypotheses, and recommendations.

Results from incomplete or nonrepresentative samples will not be presented as estimates of the entire U.S. news industry.

Public datasets will exclude unnecessary personal information and confidential correspondence.

A9. Reporting and Publication Standards

Research findings will be presented objectively and with sufficient context to prevent misleading interpretations.

The Project will clearly distinguish:

Research findings: What the evidence establishes about institutional policies and practices.

Analysis: What those findings suggest about transparency, consistency, and emerging editorial trends.

Recommendations: Policy improvements or professional practices advocated by the Project.

Institutions that decline to permit de-indexing will not automatically receive unfavorable evaluations.

Likewise, organizations permitting de-indexing will not automatically be characterized as more ethical or transparent.

Policy accessibility, clarity, and consistency will be evaluated separately from the substance of an institution’s editorial position.

A10. Corrections, Challenges, and Revisions

Any institution or member of the public may challenge a published factual claim or classification.

The Project will provide a publicly accessible correction process.

We will aim to acknowledge substantive correction requests within five business days and complete an initial review within fifteen business days.

Corrections supported by evidence will be published promptly. Material changes will be documented in a revision history.

Where an unresolved factual dispute could cause significant reputational harm, the Project may temporarily qualify or suspend the disputed classification while conducting further review.

The Project will not quietly modify substantive research findings to conceal previous errors.

A11. Research Ethics and Data Protection

The Project recognizes that reporting about historical events can itself create unnecessary harm.

Researchers will minimize the collection, retention, and redistribution of unnecessary personal information.

The Project will not republish sensitive historical allegations merely to illustrate an institution’s archival practices when less intrusive evidence is sufficient.

Private correspondence, personal records, and sensitive case materials will not be distributed without an appropriate basis.

Research data will be protected through reasonable access controls and retention procedures.

Institutional criticism will remain focused on documented policies and practices rather than personal attacks against individual journalists or students.

A12. Methodological Review and Amendments

This methodology will be reviewed at least annually and updated as research practices, technology, and relevant ethical standards evolve.

Material methodological changes will be documented with their effective dates.

The Project will preserve sufficient historical information to explain differences between findings published under successive methodology versions.

Our governing research principle:

Every institution deserves to be evaluated against the same transparent standards, every material conclusion must be supported by verifiable evidence, and every organization must have a meaningful opportunity to clarify the public record.

Cite this document

The Archive Ethics Project. (2026). Research Methodology and Institutional Classification Standards (Version 1.0; proposed founding methodology, effective upon formal adoption). https://archiveethics.org/methodology Include the date you accessed it; this page may be revised, and earlier versions are preserved.

↑ Back to top