Editorial Policy

1. Our Editorial Standards

ClarityAILab publishes research-informed, academically styled analysis on AI safety, child-centric AI, privacy, education, and responsible deployment. Our goal is to provide readers with accurate, transparent, and actionable information grounded in credible evidence.

We follow four core principles:

• Evidence-first: We prioritize peer-reviewed research, official statistics, standards bodies, and primary sources.
• Transparency: We clearly distinguish fact, interpretation, and opinion.
• Safety and Responsibility: We avoid sensationalism and provide balanced discussion of risks and benefits.
• Reader Trust: We correct errors promptly and document material updates.

2. Sources & Citation Requirements

All articles must include a References section that meets these criteria:

• Minimum citations: At least 2 reputable sources per article; more for technical or high-stakes claims.

Preferred sources (highest weight):

• Peer-reviewed papers (journals/conferences)
• Government / intergovernmental organizations (e.g., OECD, UNESCO, IMF, World Bank)
• Standards bodies (e.g., NIST, ISO/IEC, W3C)
• Official product documentation and policy pages

Allowed secondary sources: Reputable investigative journalism and established industry research (with clear methodology).

Not sufficient alone: Unverified blog posts, anonymous social posts, or unsupported claims.

Citation format (required): - [Source name](URL) — what the source supports (1 sentence)

When a claim is important, we prefer multiple independent sources (triangulation).

3. Claim Quality & Fact-Checking

Before publishing, we verify:

• Factual claims (numbers, dates, definitions) against primary sources
• Quotes against original transcripts/publications
• Attribution for research findings and expert viewpoints
• Scope/limits: we include uncertainty where evidence is mixed or evolving

If an article includes projections, we explain key assumptions, limitations, and uncertainty or confidence bounds when available.

4. How We Handle Opinions

Some articles include interpretation and opinion. When we do:

• We label it clearly as Analysis or Opinion
• We anchor reasoning in cited research and clearly state where evidence ends
• We avoid presenting speculation as established fact
• We include credible counterpoints when there is legitimate disagreement

5. Editorial Review Process

Each article follows a review workflow:

1. Drafting: Author produces a structured draft (headings, takeaways, FAQ, references).
2. Evidence review: Citations are checked for relevance, credibility, and accuracy.
3. Technical review: Reviewed by engineers/researchers for correctness.
4. Editorial review: Clarity, tone, and accessibility checks.
5. Final checks: Links verified, references formatted, metadata reviewed.

Some articles may include an explicit Reviewed by line when a separate reviewer is assigned.

6. Editorial Leadership, Board, and Contributors

ClarityAILab's editorial program is led by an interdisciplinary team that includes PhD researchers, industry engineers, and child development specialists.

Editorial Leadership

Our editorial board is chaired by Dr. J.D. Linton, who previously served as Editor-in-Chief of Technovation.

Under this leadership, our editorial standards emphasize evidence quality, transparency of claims, and responsible communication about AI.

External Contributors

We welcome contributions from reputable academics and practitioners. All external contributions must meet our Sources & citation requirements, include conflict-of-interest disclosures, and undergo the same review process.

7. Conflicts of Interest & Disclosures

We disclose material relationships, funding, or affiliations that may influence interpretation. Any sponsored content will be clearly labeled. We do not publish undisclosed paid reviews.

8. Corrections & Updates

We correct errors as quickly as possible. When we make a material change, we add an Update note with what changed, why, and the date.

9. Use of AI Tools

We may use AI tools to assist with drafting, summarization, and editing. Regardless of tools used, the author/editor is responsible for factual accuracy, citations must be verified by humans, and we do not treat AI output as a source.

10. Contact

For corrections, contributor inquiries, or editorial questions:

We encourage readers to use the Clarity AI chatbot on our website for questions, requests, and guidance. If an issue requires follow-up, Clarity AI can route the request for human review and escalation.