Review panel and subject expertise
CalculatorHub publishes calculators across medicine, aviation, engineering, tax and mathematics. One editorial reviewer can reasonably vouch for presentation, arithmetic and sourcing across all of those. One editorial reviewer cannot reasonably claim subject expertise in all of them, and we do not claim it. This page sets out what each field's review actually covers today.
Current position: 1 field has review in place and 8 fields have editorial review only or are excluded from indexing. As specialists are appointed they will be named here, with their qualifications and the scope of what they reviewed.
Where a subject needs a specialist we do not have, we claim nothing. Health, nutrition, clinical, and aviation calculators carry no reviewer attribution and no "last verified" claim at all. They state only that the content is provided for educational purposes and that it has not been reviewed by a qualified specialist in that field. We would rather show no credential than imply one we cannot support, so the general editorial byline is deliberately absent from those pages rather than being left to look like subject review.
Editorial, across all subjects
Scope of review: Presentation, arithmetic correctness, worked-example testing, source links resolving, units and formatting, and that a page does not claim more than it computes.
Reviewer: The CalculatorHub team, edited by James Graham
Mathematics and statistics
Scope of review: Formula validity, domain restrictions, sample versus population conventions, and whether a worked example exercises the identity it claims to teach.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
Pure mathematical identities are independently tested against their own formula on every build, which substitutes for subject review more convincingly here than in any other field.
Health, nutrition and fitness
Scope of review: Whether an equation is validated for the population using it, how results should be interpreted, and when a reader should be sent to a clinician instead.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
Every nutrition, body-composition and exercise tool states on the page that it has not been reviewed by a registered dietitian, physician or exercise physiologist.
Clinical and dosing
Scope of review: Dose calculations, clinical risk scores, obstetric assessment and laboratory interpretation.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators are excluded from search indexing until one is appointed.
These tools are excluded from search indexing and carry a not-for-clinical-use notice until a named clinician reviews them.
Aviation
Scope of review: Performance assumptions, safety factors, and whether an output could be mistaken for operational planning.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
Every aviation tool states that it is an educational estimate, has no qualified aviation reviewer, and must not drive a go or no-go decision.
Engineering
Scope of review: Whether a stress, load or flow result is presented as an analysis rather than a design check, and which failure modes the formula does not cover.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
Engineering pages state the elastic assumptions they rely on and list what they do not check, such as buckling, fatigue and stress concentrations.
Accounting and tax
Scope of review: Whether a rate, threshold or schedule matches the authority's current publication for the stated year.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
Every US figure carries its authority, a deep link to the publication and an as-at date, enforced on each build.
Construction
Scope of review: Quantity take-off assumptions, waste allowances and whether a result should be checked against local building rules.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
Computing and cryptography
Scope of review: Whether a keyspace, throughput or encoding calculation reflects current practice and does not imply a security guarantee.
No named specialist reviewer. These calculators carry general editorial review only.
What editorial review does and does not cover
Editorial review checks that the arithmetic is right, that the worked example matches the formula, that sources resolve and are dated, that units and formatting are correct, and that a page does not claim more than it computes. It does not establish that a formula is the right one to use for a particular real-world decision. That judgement belongs to a qualified professional in the relevant field, which is why safety-sensitive calculators point you to one.
See also our editorial standards and methodology.