Home Editorial guidelines
Editorial guidelines
Career advice is worth exactly as much as the process behind it. This page sets out ours: where our numbers come from, who checks them, what we do when we get something wrong, and where AI sits in the work.
Our mission
To give every Australian worker the same quality of information about their own career that an employer already has about the job, free, in plain language, with the source attached.
Our vision
A working life where nobody has to make a career decision on a guess, a rumour or somebody else’s sales pitch.
That commitment is a practical one. Accurate information, clearly sourced, turned into a next step you can actually take. A page here should leave you knowing something specific you didn’t know when you arrived, and knowing what to do about it.
Our principles
Editorial independence
Nobody pays to appear on careertips. We don't take sponsored articles, paid placements or affiliate commissions on courses, and no employer, training provider or recruiter has any say in what we publish or how a role is described.
That matters most where the money usually is. A page about whether a qualification is worth it has no course to sell you at the end of it, so it can say plainly when the answer is no.
Fact-checking and corrections
Every number on the site traces back to the body that published it, and the source is named on the page rather than buried. Where a figure comes from Jobs and Skills Australia or the Australian Bureau of Statistics, we link the release it came from and show when it was last updated. Where something is our own analysis, we label it as ours.
We re-read a page against its sources before it goes live, and again when the underlying data moves. If we can't verify a claim, it doesn't go in.
When we get something wrong, we fix it on the page and change the last updated date so you can see it moved. If the error changed the substance of the advice, we say what changed. Tell us about one at hello@careertips.com.au.
How we use AI
We use AI, and we'd rather tell you where than have you guess. Article drafts are produced with AI assistance against a written brief, and every one is read, checked against its sources and edited by a person before it publishes. Nothing reaches the site straight from a model.
The data is not written by AI at all. Salary figures, employment projections and the rest are ingested directly from official datasets and rendered as text on the page, so what you read is what the source says.
Illustrations on the site are AI-generated, and each one says so beneath it.
What we don't do: invent statistics to fill a gap, attribute a quote to anyone who didn't give it, or publish a page nobody has read.
Something look wrong?
If a figure doesn’t match the source, or a page has gone stale, we want to know. Corrections go on the page itself, not in a footnote nobody reads.
Report a correction