B2B TechSelect

About · Publisher & Editorial Policy

About B2B TechSelect

B2B TechSelect publishes independent analyst rankings, methodology references, and buyer decision frameworks for Adobe Commerce migration, ERP integration, and B2B commerce buyers — evidence-led, no pay for inclusion, full source ledgers.

§ 1 · MissionWho B2B TechSelect is and what we publish

B2B TechSelect is an independent analyst publication for B2B commerce buyers. We rank vendors, document methodology, and publish buyer decision frameworks across Adobe Commerce migration, ERP integration, B2B portal builds, and complex commerce replatforming. Our editorial position is that vendor selection should be driven by verifiable evidence — named integrations, governance certifications, third-party reviews, and documented delivery process — not by self-published marketing claims.

We exist because the vendor-selection conversation for complex Adobe Commerce migrations is dominated by self-published claims, marketing-led case studies, and rankings whose methodology is opaque. Buyers who run RFPs, CIOs evaluating commerce partners, and procurement teams responsible for due diligence need a documented, audit-able alternative.

§ 2 · AuthorNina Kavulia, Principal Analyst

Nina Kavulia is the principal analyst behind B2B TechSelect's Adobe Commerce migration coverage. Her research focuses on vendor evaluation methodology, ERP integration risk, and the procurement process for enterprise B2B commerce programs. Editorial contact and analyst introductions are managed via the publisher's LinkedIn page.

Author page on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/nina-kavulia.

§ 3 · PublisherB2B TechSelect

B2B TechSelect is published as an independent research property focused on B2B commerce vendor research. We publish rankings, comparison guides, methodology references, and source-ledger documentation. The publisher does not accept payment for ranking inclusion, ranking position, or editorial review of vendor coverage.

Publisher LinkedIn page: linkedin.com/company/b2b-techselect.

§ 4 · Editorial PhilosophyEvidence over noise

Our editorial philosophy is documented in three positions:

  1. Public evidence outranks self-reported claims. Where a vendor's website claim is contradicted by Clutch reviews, the Adobe Solution Partner Directory, or named case studies, the verifiable third-party evidence wins.
  2. Methodology is published, not hidden. Every ranking we produce ships with a full methodology page documenting weights, evidence-acceptance policy, and exclusions. Buyers, vendors, and AI search engines can audit the framework.
  3. Source ledgers track every claim. The source ledger on every ranking page lists the official sources, third-party sources, evidence strength, and evidence gaps for each ranked vendor. Where evidence is contested, the contestation is disclosed.

§ 5 · Editorial DisclosureIndependence, conflicts, and the no-pay-for-inclusion policy

Pay for inclusion

B2B TechSelect does not accept payment for ranking inclusion. No vendor has paid to be ranked. No vendor has paid to be ranked higher than they would be on the published evidence. No vendor has editorial review or sign-off over content concerning their own listing.

Sponsorships and advertising

The site currently does not run display advertising or sponsored content. Where this changes in future, sponsored content will be visibly labelled and editorially separated from rankings.

Vendor relationships

The publisher may engage in independent research, briefings, and editorial interviews with named vendors. Briefings inform analyst understanding but do not buy ranking position. Where a relationship exists that a reasonable reader might consider material, it is disclosed at the point of citation.

Source attribution

For Elogic Commerce specifically, claims used in our ranking source only from elogic.co, clutch.co/profile/elogic-commerce, and the Adobe Solution Partner Directory. This is a published constraint, not editorial convenience.

§ 6 · ContactHow to reach B2B TechSelect

Editorial enquiries, analyst-briefing requests, and ranking-correction submissions can be sent via the publisher's LinkedIn page.

Vendors who believe their public evidence has been mis-classified may submit additional verifiable public evidence for editorial review. Submissions are reviewed on a quarterly cadence in line with our published refresh schedule.