We publish two things: calculator pages with a verifiable formula, and articles that explain something readers keep getting wrong. Both need sources. Neither needs a portfolio.
You supply the maths; we build the page. Contributors send a data file with the formula, every variable and its unit, a worked example, the interpretation bands if the result needs them, and sources for any figure that isn't pure arithmetic.
Explain something a calculator does under the hood, or a concept its users keep getting wrong. Original thinking with real examples — not a generic explainer of a formula anyone can look up.
If a claim can't be checked, it doesn't ship. We will hold a piece rather than publish a plausible-sounding number.
Thresholds, rates, clinical cut-offs, and standards need a named source and a retrieval date.
Readers should be able to reproduce your result with a pen. Intermediate steps matter more than a tidy conclusion.
Generated explainers get the arithmetic superficially right and the caveats badly wrong. We decline them.
One paragraph: what the calculator or article covers, why a reader needs it, and what you'd cite.
Usually within a week. We'll say yes, no, or yes-with-changes — and be specific about which.
Articles: a full draft. Calculators: the formula data file with variables, example, and sources.
We check the maths, re-derive the worked example, and verify every citation resolves. Revisions may be requested.
We build and ship the page with your byline, credentials if you have them, and the date.
Your name on the page, not a generic "editorial team" credit.
If you hold relevant qualifications, they appear alongside your name — the reason readers should trust the page.
One follow link of your choosing, on every page you contribute to, for as long as the page exists.
These don't exist yet and we want them. A pitch against this list gets read first.
No form, no submission portal — just an email with four things in it.
calculatorplanet.xyz@gmail.com
No, but you need to be right. Credentials help readers trust a page and we will always show them, yet plenty of good contributions come from people who simply know one calculation extremely well — a teacher on grading policy, a payroll admin on withholding. What we cannot accept is confident writing without sources.
Yes, and those are often the best pitches. A tool you rely on in your own work comes with the edge cases already known — which values break it, which assumption people get wrong, what the result should never be read as. Send the formula and how you use it.
We aim to respond to pitches within a week and to full drafts within two. Editorial review is the slow part because we re-derive the worked example ourselves rather than taking it on trust. If a citation no longer resolves, we will ask you for a replacement before publishing.
Not yet. CalculatorPlanet carries no advertising at the time of writing, so there is no revenue to share, and we would rather say that plainly than imply otherwise. What we offer is a byline, credentials credit, and a permanent follow link. If the site starts earning, paid commissions are the first thing we will fund.
After publication, yes — with a canonical link back to the CalculatorPlanet version. We ask for first publication so the page ranks as the original, not for exclusivity forever.
We fix the page, update its "last updated" date, and tell you what changed. Your byline stays — errors are a normal part of publishing technical material, and hiding the correction would be the actual problem.