After about a week-long sabbatical, I am not entirely surprised at the responses to my question. All your points have been well received. \r\n\r\nIt may be the policy of this forum to do so as its notion of courtesy dictates. I have no quarel with that. You've made your point. Now let me make mine. \r\n\r\nSome have opined that a film review is different from a product review which is done for very technical products like the equipment we use in our hobby. But that is entirely beside the point. The objective of a review is the same, regardless of what is being reviewed. And that is to enlighten the consumer so he\/she can make a more informed decision or choice. Doing so requires validating the claims of a manufacturer made on its spec sheet that is available to consumers. A reviewer works to test those claims. \r\n\r\nTo say that equipment reviews are often done by "technically illiterate" people is a disservice to consumers. Letting the manufacturers see the result of a review in order to check on the veracity of the results made by these "illiterate" reviewers who are not confident of their test results smacks of irresponsibility. Why allow a review to be done by incompetents? \r\n\r\nBut I have to ask, why do you have to have the manufacturer check on the results of your test? Are you not sure? What facts do you have to check with them AFTER the tests are done? Shouldn't you have done this BEFORE?\r\n\r\nI submit that it is the responsibility of the reviewer to get his facts straight PRIOR to making a review. At this stage, a reviewer can liaise with the manufacturers to straighten his facts as part of what is called due dilligence. And he should ethically advice the manufacturer of his testing methodology and all the software and measuring hardware he intends to use in his test. \r\n\r\nBut once the testing is done to validate manufacturer claims, that's it. The knowledge and technical expertise of the reviewer bears down on how he conducts the test on the supplied data from the manufacturer. A reviewer is testing the Data supplied by the manufacturer which should be no different as what is made available to the public. Nothing more. And, because a reviewer knows what he is doing or not doing, stands by the results of that test for the benefit of the consumer. I don't see the point why any part of his review needs to be shown to the manufacturer after the test\/review is made. The manufacturer can see it in published form and does whatever correction is needed to better the product. And in many magazines publishing such reviews, I often encounter published retorts from the manufacturers themsevles arguing an aspect of the test results. But the publishers\/reviewever often stood their ground standing pat on their testing methodology. \r\n\r\nThe goal behind testing a product so that consumers are not led astray by their makers is simple: To validate manufacturer claims. When you validate a claim, it is like GRADING a student's test results (the claims a student makes on how well he has learned) It carries a degree of FINALITY that cannot and must not be altered by the subject of the test. To say that other reviewers do so fails to convince me that the practice is sound. Just because many are doing it doesn't consitute a valid justification. Perhaps within the ambit of your daily work, you do find them. But not in mine. I have previsously worked with film ratings and consumer advocacy groups and I don't recall submitting test results to manufacturers prior to publication. The reviewers I know submit their test methodology and the product data claims they will test PRIOR to testing. And if they hear nothing from the manufacturer after a certain date, they proceed with the test all the way to publication. \r\n\r\nSo I may be a odd man out decrying this. Fine. I am merely pointing out my obvious disagreement with the practice from my own viewpoint. And while I am very open to opposing views that can change my opinion on the matter or prove me wrong, so far I haven't read any that will. But like what Gene said, i've "vented my steam, nuff said."