RevisionDojo is designed to provide accurate, syllabus-aligned IB explanations, questions, solutions, and feedback. Its published review model involves experienced teachers, current or former IB examiners, high-achieving alumni, and student testers. However, it is an independent educational platform, not an official International Baccalaureate publication, and no public evidence establishes that every answer is error-free.
The responsible answer to how accurate is RevisionDojo is that it is a credible supplementary resource with human review and correction mechanisms, but students should verify high-stakes details against current IB documentation and teacher guidance. Understanding its reliability requires looking separately at content accuracy, syllabus alignment, assessment realism, AI output, and quality control.
What does accuracy mean on RevisionDojo?
Accuracy is not a single measurement. A mathematically correct solution can still be unsuitable if it belongs to an outdated syllabus, while a well-written essay may not address the command term or mark allocation adequately.
| Type of accuracy | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Factual accuracy | Definitions, calculations, evidence, terminology, and conclusions are correct. |
| Syllabus accuracy | Content matches the applicable IB course, assessment version, and SL or HL level. |
| Assessment accuracy | Questions, command terms, marks, and expected responses reflect IB-style assessment. |
| Feedback accuracy | Explanations correctly identify why an answer earns or loses marks. |
| Predictive accuracy | Practice papers resemble plausible examinations without claiming to forecast them. |
RevisionDojo is most useful for structured learning and exam-style practice. The RevisionDojo Questionbank, for example, organises questions by subject and topic and provides worked solutions and mark-scheme-aligned feedback.
However, IB-style does not mean official IB material. RevisionDojo is independently developed and is not endorsed by the International Baccalaureate Organization. Official IB sample examination papers remain the clearest reference for authentic assessment structure and presentation.
How the RevisionDojo QA process works
RevisionDojo’s published content philosophy describes a multi-perspective review model involving students, alumni, and teachers. Its published accuracy review also describes contributions from current or former IB examiners and subject specialists.
These groups provide different forms of scrutiny:
- Teachers and subject specialists check methods, terminology, technical content, and explanatory clarity.
- Current or former IB examiners contribute knowledge of assessment expectations, command terms, common errors, and markscheme logic where involved.
- High-achieving alumni contribute recent experience of course demands and IB examinations.
- Current students test whether explanations are understandable, manageable, and useful in practice.
This structure is stronger than relying on a general writer or an unreviewed AI response because it combines subject expertise, assessment knowledge, and student usability. It does not, however, prove that every individual item passes through every reviewer category.
Public RevisionDojo pages do not provide a complete item-by-item audit showing reviewer assignments, double-review requirements, correction times, or version histories. The available evidence supports saying that these groups participate in the wider editorial process, not that every question is independently approved by an examiner, teacher, alumnus, and student.
RevisionDojo question accuracy
The RevisionDojo question accuracy students experience depends on more than the final answer. A sound question must use clear wording, test an appropriate syllabus point, apply a suitable command term, allocate marks sensibly, and provide reasoning that learners can follow.
In mathematics and science, students can often check accuracy by repeating calculations, checking units, substituting an answer back into the original relationship, or comparing the method with a teacher-approved solution. Essay subjects involve more judgement because several arguments or examples may legitimately earn credit.
A model essay should therefore be treated as one defensible approach, not mandatory wording. Students should ask whether it addresses the command term, uses relevant evidence, and sustains analysis. Similarly, RevisionDojo grading should be treated as a formative estimate because only an authorised examiner applying the official assessment process can award an official IB examination mark.
How errors are reported and corrected
RevisionDojo provides a reporting workflow for Questionbank mistakes. According to its content-error reporting guide, signed-in users can open the three-dot menu on a question, select Report question, choose a category, provide details, and submit the report.
Report categories include:
- incorrect or inaccurate information;
- broken images, diagrams, or figures;
- formatting problems;
- placement in the wrong topic;
- another specified issue.
Reports are sent to the team responsible for editing content and grouped with other reports concerning the same question. RevisionDojo states that a report is marked as dealt with when the correction is live.
Resources without an embedded reporting button, such as notes, lessons, flashcards, cheatsheets, and papers, can be reported through support. A useful report identifies the subject, topic, resource, disputed wording, and proposed correction. Public documentation does not promise a correction deadline or individual response, so urgent academic questions should also be raised with a teacher.
Students should distinguish content errors from technical bugs. A wrong solution or broken diagram is a content issue, while a page that does not load requires the separate bug-reporting route.
What public QA figures can establish
No verified public dataset currently states how many RevisionDojo questions were reviewed in a defined period or what proportion required correction. Publishing a numerical error rate without internal records, a denominator, and a clear methodology would therefore be misleading.
Typos, formatting changes, ambiguous wording, and substantive factual errors are different categories. A sample review also cannot be presented as if it covered the entire Questionbank. Until independently interpretable figures are published, the documented editorial and reporting processes provide more defensible evidence than an unsupported accuracy percentage.
How accurate is Jojo AI?
Jojo AI provides IB-focused explanations, practice support, and mark-scheme-aligned feedback. It is likely to be most relevant when a prompt identifies the subject, level, paper, topic, and command term clearly.
Nevertheless, generative AI can produce incomplete, overly confident, or incorrect responses. Ambiguous prompts, unusual methods, diagram interpretation, nuanced essays, and questions with several defensible answers create particular difficulty. Human-reviewed Study Notes and authored Questionbank items should not be treated as identical to a newly generated AI answer.
Students can reduce risk by asking Jojo AI to:
- show each calculation or reasoning step;
- state assumptions explicitly;
- identify the relevant command term;
- map feedback to individual mark points;
- explain whether an alternative answer could earn credit;
- acknowledge uncertainty where interpretation is required.
For coursework, AI should support revision rather than replace student authorship or teacher judgement. The IB’s guidance on artificial intelligence requires students to examine AI output critically and acknowledge AI-generated material used in assessed work according to applicable academic integrity expectations.
A practical accuracy check for students and parents
Families can evaluate RevisionDojo more effectively through a controlled test than through broad claims about the whole platform.
- Confirm the course version. Check the subject, SL or HL level, and first-assessment year against school documentation.
- Choose a familiar topic. Existing knowledge makes possible errors easier to notice.
- Read one Study Note. Compare its terminology and scope with class materials.
- Complete 5-10 questions. Examine wording, methods, mark allocation, and reasoning rather than only the score.
- Verify one difficult answer. Consult a teacher, textbook, or official specimen material.
- Test the feedback. Check whether it identifies a specific weakness and suggests an action transferable to another question.
- Report discrepancies. Include enough detail for the editorial team to reproduce and investigate the issue.
Students can use question analytics to monitor their accuracy by topic. This measures student performance, not the proportion of platform content that is correct, so the two figures should not be confused.
Common mistakes when judging accuracy
Polished presentation is not proof of correctness. Students must still check the underlying method, evidence, terminology, and syllabus alignment.
Predicted Papers should also be understood as practice simulations, not forecasts of the examination. No independent resource can guarantee which questions the IB will set, and revising only topics found in one prediction can create serious gaps.
Platform scores are similarly not official grades. Automated feedback is most useful for identifying patterns, generating questions for a teacher, and planning further practice. RevisionDojo’s guide to evaluating IB support tools recommends considering syllabus alignment, feedback quality, evidence of progress, and suitability for the individual student.
Conclusion
RevisionDojo combines syllabus organisation, specialist input, student testing, worked explanations, and user error reporting. These controls support reliability, but they do not justify claiming perfection or publishing an unverified numerical accuracy rate.
Students should treat RevisionDojo as a supplementary resource while keeping official IB documentation, school materials, and teacher judgement authoritative for high-stakes decisions. RevisionDojo Study Notes and the Questionbank are practical starting points, while Jojo AI is best used to clarify reasoning and identify gaps rather than as an unquestionable source.
