CertREV integrates verified reviewers with AI workflows, SOC-2 security, automated tax capture, blockchain auditing, and EEAT schema — all without contracts, added headcount, or compliance risk.
The credit model enables flexible use of reviewer tiers, volume, and rush options, giving finance teams predictable billing and marketers the freedom to scale reviews effortlessly.
Each review includes structured author data, an EEAT Meter™ badge, and an audit receipt. This boosts Google’s trust, crawl rate, backlinks, and ranking consistency.
CertREV costs less (approx. $480 vs. $600–$1,200), avoids legal/admin overhead, and allows access to multiple experts under one platform with built-in compliance and attribution
You buy a monthly credit bundle. Each expert review deducts a set number of credits based on the expert tier.
Reviewer time, light editing, compliance checks, signed attribution, structured data (JSON‑LD), project management, and QA.
Starts at $80 per credit. Bundles of 100+ credits reduce the price to the low $70s.
No. Bundles renew monthly and can be upgraded, downgraded, or canceled anytime.
Add‑on credits are charged at your current bundle rate and billed on the next invoice.
Your lower per-credit rate takes effect immediately for future usage.
Yes, they roll over for 90 days to support campaign flexibility.
Depends on tier: 2 credits for certified wellness pros, 4 for RDs/NPs, 6 for MD/PhDs.
Yes. Credits are fully flexible across tiers, content types, and specialties.
Yes. The credit cost is fixed by expert tier and shown before submission.
Yes—Enterprise plans support pooled credits and role-based access.
Yes. Rush (24-hr) and brand-exclusivity (6–12 months) are optional add-ons priced in credits.
Standard SLA is 72 hours from brief acceptance; rush service delivers in 24 hours.
1. Link your Google Doc draft and set permissions to editing for certreviewed@gmail.com.
2. Select reviewer tier, specialty, and any add‑ons.
3. Reviewer completes the checklist, edits lightly in Suggest mode, and signs.
4. You receive the marked‑up file,
5. After you approve the edits, you receive the EEAT badge snippet, and audit receipt.
6. If changes are requested, one revision cycle is included at no extra cost.
You choose the tier and specialty; the platform matches you with a vetted expert who is available and not currently engaged with a direct competitor.
Matching weighs specialty, compliance history, prior brand conflicts, and SLA capacity to protect category exclusivity and hit deadlines.
You can, but rotating qualified experts typically delivers stronger EEAT signals and mitigates over‑reliance on a single name.
Reviewers are not assigned to direct competitors within the same category for at least six months, and you can purchase formal exclusivity if required.
Not yet.
For enterprise clients, API endpoints and a Zapier app can push the signed review, schema, and badge directly into most CMSs, DAMs, or workflow tools.
Licensed or credentialed professionals—RNs, NPs, MDs, PhDs, RDs, CPAs, JDs, and other specialists—actively practicing in North America and verified quarterly.
Identity verification, license/degree authentication via ComplyCube, 50‑state sanctions check, LinkedIn activity review, and a maintained ≥ 4.0/5 post‑project rating.
Each reviewer completes a mandatory toolkit covering citation style, hallucination red‑flags, bias markers, and the CertREV compliance checklist before they take their first assignment.
They fact‑check, correct citations, flag compliance issues, and add a short professional insight. If any checkpoint fails, you receive structured edit notes instead of a signature.
Every project is rated by the brand. Scores below 4.0 trigger quality review, remedial training, or removal from the network.
Reviewers disclose financial or competitive conflicts in the brief; the platform blocks assignment if a conflict exists and logs the decision in the audit record.
Your brand retains full responsibility. CertREV provides a documented credibility layer but is not the publisher of record.
No. Experts are verifying legitimacy, not endorsing the brand or product. Use “Reviewed by [Name], [Credentials] via CertREV.” Language implying endorsement or continuing affiliation is prohibited unless separately contracted.
If substantive edits are made, the reviewer’s name and badge must be removed or the piece resubmitted for re‑validation (1 credit).
The checklist forces evidence alignment, required disclaimers, and restricted‑term removal. A signed audit hash gives legal teams a timestamped trail of due diligence.
Yes—SOC‑2 Type II controls govern encryption in transit and at rest, access logging, and quarterly penetration testing.
Every completed review is hashed to an immutable ledger; the receipt, reviewer licence ID, and timestamp are stored in your dashboard for download.
A platform NDA is baked into every assignment; custom NDAs can be added for an additional cost.
Most brands observe ranking uplift and incremental traffic within 60–120 days, aligning with Google’s recrawl cadence.
No—start with the top 20‑40 % of pages driving 80 % of traffic or revenue, then expand as budget allows.
A site at 100 k organic sessions/month might gains 10–15 % more traffic and convert 0.5–0.7 % of that lift.
Even at 0.25 % CVR the program covers cost and delivers ~1.5× ROI; higher‑intent pages often achieve 5–10× ROI.
Monitor Google Search Console for average position gains, click growth on expert‑stamped URLs, and new external links.
Yes—landing pages displaying a third‑party credibility badge converted 42 % higher in a 2025 multivariate study, lowering CAC on identical ad spend. In the world of AI, credibility is more critical than ever to ensure content ranks.
An FDA or FTC warning can exceed $50 k in legal costs and lost media. A CertREV review adds a documented checkpoint for ≤ $80.
Credible bylines lower AI‑spam scores and boost brand‑safety ratings, protecting programmatic ad revenue.
Request a re‑audit for 1 credit; the original—or a peer‑matched—expert updates the piece and re‑signs, preserving attribution without starting over.
LLMs predict language patterns; they do not verify empirical data. A human expert validates evidence, spots nuanced risk, and represents accountability that an algorithm cannot assume.
Articles with recognizable subject‑matter reviewers are prioritized under LLM’s and Google’s E‑E‑A‑T framework, often earning stronger backlink profiles and higher topical authority.
Edelman’s 2025 Trust Barometer ranks credentialed experts as the most trusted spokespeople; visible professional validation reduces bounce rates and purchase hesitation.
The platform’s agreement grants perpetual, non‑exclusive display rights and indemnifies the expert against post‑publication edits, provided you do not alter reviewed copy without re‑validation.
Anyone can paste a PubMed link; Google and consumers reward brands that contextualize evidence through a living, accountable authority.
Yes—77 % of internet users consume blogs regularly as of 2025.
Brands that blog generate 55 % more visitors and 67 % more leads than those that don’t.
Publishing 2–4 times per week drives 3× the traffic of less active sites.
Routine updates drive up to 434 % more indexed pages and 97 % more inbound links, both core ranking factors.
Yes—stale content can slip overnight in competitive niches.
Sixty percent of consumers value blog content during the awareness stage, but strategic blogs influence consideration and decision as well.
Blog assets feed newsletters, social posts, lead magnets, and retargeting ads, lowering creative costs across the funnel.
Organic traffic and backlink velocity decline; rankings on time‑sensitive keywords soften. A brief pause is fine, but schedule at least one refresh per month.
Algorithmic and audience expectations favor steady value over sporadic bursts.
Pair in‑house and AI enabled writers with CertREV for research, review, and publishing logistics so volume doesn’t stall when internal bandwidth is tight.
Reviewers supply verified credibility; influencers supply reach. Together they multiply trust and distribution.
No—their role is validation, not amplification.
Credibility is a conversion multiplier; validated content performs better when you do choose to promote it.
Yes—pair influencer reach with reviewer validation for the strongest performance.
Not generally with CertREV; separating roles preserves objectivity and compliance.
Influencer content that features expert signatures is less likely to be flagged as misleading and benefits from higher engagement.
They are paid for their time and expertise, not endorsement. They only sign off on content that meets their professional standards.
Attention without trust can backfire; CertREV lays the factual foundation that makes promotion safe and effective.
No. Diversifying qualified voices signals broader institutional authority and helps avoid potential reviewer conflicts. It also allows you to assign more niche-specialist reviewers for validating specific content areas.
Using multiple experts brings varied credentials, which deepens topical relevance, layers credibility, and protects against algorithm updates that align expertise more closely with subject matter.
Start small. Use a broad-experience generalist initially. As your traffic grows, reinvest gains to scale into deeper specialization with additional experts.
Yes. The platform allows you to route content to the appropriate expert using specialty tags, ensuring reviewers match the topic of each article.
Credit bundles auto‑bill monthly via Stripe; overages are added to the same invoice.
Upgrades take effect instantly; downgrades apply on the next cycle.
No, but 90‑day rollover prevents waste, and credits can be transferred within enterprise accounts.
You can pause publishing; your signed evergreen articles keep compounding authority. Just ensure you resume within the 90‑day rollover window or refresh top performers before credits expire.
Social media influencers drive reach; true experts deliver verifiable credibility—an asset AI cannot manufacture. Your license or certification certifies that health, finance, legal, or scientific claims are accurate, safe, and ethically framed, lifting consumer trust, regulatory confidence, and search‑engine authority.
Google’s E‑E‑A‑T signals reward pages that show Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust. Your signature block (name, credential, personal perspective, jurisdiction, date) satisfies all four, typically increasing crawl frequency, backlink attraction, and ranking stability across the entire topic cluster.
Yes. Each live article lists you as a contributor, creating a public, verifiable record of your expertise that can lead to keynote invitations, media quotes, and academic or clinical career advancement—without the time commitment of full authorship.
No. Your role is independent validation, not endorsement or amplification. You may share the content if you wish, but brands do not expect it and cannot require it.
Licensed or formally certified professionals—MDs, PhDs, NPs, RNs, IBCLCs, RDs, doulas, therapists, PharmDs, CPAs, JDs, MBAs, and similar experts—with subject‑matter depth and credentials to back up their expertise.
You don’t have to do anything aside from provide your basic information and permission to check your record. Our platform does all the admin. We perform: Identity verification, background check, active‑license or credential authentication via ComplyCube, a 50‑state sanctions/disciplinary check, and LinkedIn profile review.
No. Set your weekly capacity in the dashboard and accept only the briefs that fit your schedule. You may decline assignments without penalty.
Yes. Adjust capacity at any time. Pending briefs you have not yet accepted will return to the pool automatically.
Withdrawals before the start date incur no penalty. After you begin work, notify CertREV support so the brief can be reassigned. Withdrawal after acceptance can hurt your rating and reduce the number of future opportunities sent your way.
You define your specialties, tier, and capacity. The platform surfaces briefs that meet those parameters while generally avoiding direct competitors you have reviewed within the past six months.
Open the pre‑formatted Google Doc, work through the five‑part Compliance Checklist (Accuracy & Integrity, Evidence & Citations, Regulatory Compliance, Ethics & Conflicts, Personal Perspective), accept or suggest edits, and add 1-5 lines of your personal perspective. Typical effort: 30–60 minutes for a 1,500–2,000‑word draft.
A one‑page style guide, an AI hallucination red‑flag list, Grammarly access, and an optional plagiarism‑scan link are included with every brief.
You perform a light but structured edit: fact‑check, citation repair, compliance language, and clarity notes. If major issues remain, leave structured comments and reject the draft until corrected.
One feedback round is built in but rarely used; a brief follow‑up pass is covered if the brand seeks factual clarification. Additional rounds of review for material changes constitute new assignments.
Yes—comments inside the Google Doc are the primary channel. Direct email is enabled when a live call or nuance is required, with CertREV support copied to maintain an audit trail.
You earn a fixed USD rate per assignment, deposited via ACH, Zelle, Venmo, or PayPal. Your choice.
Funds are released automatically 14 days after you sign off and the brand approves the draft.
Request a tier re‑evaluation at any time. We reassess credentials, demand, and market benchmarks each quarter to keep tiers equitable.
You will receive a 1099‑NEC each January if CertREV has paid you more than $600 in the year.
Not yet.
Your name, credential initials, headshot, and 50‑word bio appear in the “Reviewed by” block on the approved article and may be listed on the brand’s contributors page. Use beyond that (ads, product packaging, white‑papers) requires a separate written agreement.
No. Transparent, credentialed attribution is the value to brands and readers. If public naming is an issue, CertREV may not be the right fit.
Only an up‑to‑date LinkedIn profile displaying your credentials is mandatory. Social reach or activity is optional.
Your contract limits liability to gross negligence. The brand, as publisher of record, remains responsible for final copy and its real‑world use.
No additional policy is required. You are supplying educational commentary, not patient‑specific or client‑specific advice.
The approved version is hashed to an immutable ledger. If the brand edits the piece, they must remove your attribution or request re‑validation. You are not liable for unauthorized changes.
Yes—CertREV is SOC‑2 Type II compliant. All personal data and license documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, with quarterly penetration tests and role‑based access controls.
A platform‑wide NDA covers all assignments; custom NDAs can be added at no cost when brands share pre‑launch or sensitive material.
Yes. The only restriction is that you cannot review for direct competitors within the same product‑category niche for six months if the brand purchases formal exclusivity. Personal blogs, academic papers, and employer content are unrestricted.
You disclose financial or competitive ties when a brief is offered. The platform blocks assignment if a conflict exists and records the decision in the audit trail.
Brands rate each project 1–5. Scores below 4.0 trigger quality review, targeted feedback, and—if unresolved—removal from the network.
Yes. Quarterly webinars cover SEO trends, regulatory updates, and reviewing best practices. Participation is optional and unpaid.
Use the in‑platform chat or email certreviewed@gmail.com for assignment, tech, or payment queries—responses within two business days.
The brand can request a re‑validation cycle. You receive first right of refusal; the update is treated as a new micro‑assignment at one credit (paid to you at your standard rate).
Yes. Provide written notice, complete any accepted briefs, and your profile will be deactivated. Existing attributions remain live unless you request removal for cause (e.g., misrepresentation by the brand).
Google’s quality framework looks for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust in every piece of content. Pages that demonstrate all four signals are more likely to earn and keep strong rankings.
First‑hand perspective—stories, case data, or practitioner insight—proves the author has actually done what they’re writing about, filtering out generic AI summaries and untested advice.
Not in the technical sense, but the machine‑learning systems that power rankings and AI answers favor pages where these qualities are obvious, especially for topics that affect health, money, or safety.
Core updates across 2024–25 cut 50 %+ of traffic from sites that leaned on anonymous or lightly edited AI copy. Pages with clear expertise and strong sourcing retained visibility.
A zero‑click occurs when Google answers a query directly on the results page—through featured snippets, People‑Also‑Ask boxes, or AI Overviews—so users don’t need to visit a site. Brands now compete to be cited in those answers rather than just listed below them.
Own the citation. Pages with credible bylines, structured data, and concise, evidence‑backed summaries are algorithmically preferred for featured snippets and AI Overviews. Even a single citation can drive outsized clicks and brand recognition.
Featured snippets quote one page verbatim; AI Overviews synthesize information from several sources, then display a handful of links. The bar for trust and clarity is higher because the system must reconcile multiple viewpoints.
They draw from Google’s index, prioritizing pages that pair reliable evidence with machine‑readable signals—author bios, review schema, up‑to‑date sources, and minimal spam indicators.
Accuracy is necessary but insufficient. Google now down‑ranks “scaled content” that lacks original insight or clear accountability. Human fact‑check plus expert attribution is the safest path.
Yes—surveys show over 70 % of readers distrust anonymous or AI‑only content. Adding a recognizable professional lifts engagement metrics like time-on-site, shares, and backlinks.
Long‑form pieces that feature licensed reviewers earn significantly more links and shares than un‑attributed articles because journalists and influencers prefer citing verifiable expertise.
A short bio with credentials, relevant experience, and a headshot. For reviewed pieces, include the reviewer’s name, license type or degree, and the date of review.
Yes. Article, Person, and Review schema make the author and reviewer immediately machine‑readable, increasing eligibility for featured snippets, FAQ rich results, and AI citations. CertREV supplies the JSON‑LD for expert reviewers so you can paste it in.
Start with author bios, add CertREV reviews to your ten highest‑traffic or highest‑conversion pages, and implement FAQ Page schema on each.
Prioritize the 20–40 % of URLs that drive 80 % of traffic or revenue. Layer more reviews as resources grow.
Google rewards pages that stay current. Refresh statistics and links on top posts at least twice a year, or sooner if guidelines in your field change.
Yes—consolidating thin or duplicate articles into a single, stronger resource concentrates authority and prevents keyword cannibalization.
Google increasingly tracks brand reputation signals even without a hyperlink. Expert‑reviewed content is more likely to be referenced by name in forums, podcasts, and social posts—feeding those signals.
External reviewers provide third‑party validation, reducing perceived bias and meeting Google’s emphasis on independent expertise. This differentiation is hard for competitors to replicate without similar relationships.