What I Stand Behind

Why I Publish

The Journal is where I work through ideas, questions, research and lessons from things I have lived, built or tried to understand. A piece should give the reader something worth the time: a clearer distinction, useful evidence, a practical question, an honest account of experience or a way to think more carefully about a difficult subject.

I use modern tools, including AI, but speed is not a reason to publish. The standard is whether the finished work is useful, accurate to the available evidence and honest about what is known, believed, remembered or still uncertain.

What I Own

Journal articles are published under my name. I am accountable for the viewpoint, the personal material attributed to me and the decision to make the work public.

Software, editors and AI-assisted tools may help with parts of production. They do not get to invent my memories, opinions, credentials, relationships, quotations or experiences. If I write that I saw, felt, believed or remembered something, that material has to come from me or from first-person material I have already authorized.

Sources

Research-backed pieces should rest on evidence a reader can inspect. When a primary or authoritative source is available and material to the claim, I prefer it: original research, official data, legislation, standards, technical documentation, direct statements and public records.

Secondary reporting and analysis can add context. AI-generated summaries are not evidence by themselves.

Current facts are checked against current sources when the timing matters. Quantitative claims should keep their units, dates, denominators and assumptions clear enough to understand. When credible sources disagree or the evidence is incomplete, I would rather leave that uncertainty visible than force a cleaner answer.

Personal experience has a different role. I can describe what happened to me, what I remember and what I came to believe. I do not present those things as universal proof for somebody else.

AI Use

I use AI-assisted tools in parts of the editorial process. Depending on the piece, they may help with research planning, source discovery, comparison, outlining, drafting, editing, data work, accessibility or publication checks.

AI output is working material. Factual authority comes from credible sources, transparent calculations, authorized first-hand accounts or clearly identified analysis.

AI is also not allowed to manufacture confidence where the evidence is weak. It should not fabricate sources, quotations, data, credentials, interviews or personal experiences, and it should not turn private information into public material without authorization.

Review

Substantive Journal pieces receive more than a drafting pass. I review the complete piece for source support, claim boundaries, clarity, repetition, structure, accessibility and whether the argument actually says what the evidence can support.

Tools can flag grammar, readability or consistency problems. Those signals still require judgment. A cleaner sentence is not an improvement if it becomes less accurate.

Corrections

Publication does not freeze an article in place. Current facts can change, better evidence can appear and mistakes can be found.

When a material factual error is confirmed, I correct it. The modification date is updated when appropriate, and a correction is noted when the nature of the change is important context for the reader. Minor copy edits that do not change meaning do not need a public correction notice.

Commercial Disclosures

The Journal may discuss products, services, organizations or projects in which I have a financial or ownership interest. That experience can still be useful, but the relationship should be visible when a reasonable reader would want to know about it.

Sponsorships, paid placements, affiliate relationships and other material financial interests should be disclosed in context.

Discovery

I want useful work to be easy to find. Search terms, internal links, descriptive metadata and accessible page structure can help readers reach the right piece.

Discovery does not decide what I publish. I do not create thin variations of the same article simply to cover more searches, and I do not maintain a separate lower-quality version for search engines or AI systems. The page a reader sees is the work.

Source Transparency

When an article relies on external evidence, the supporting sources should be visible or traceable from the published work.

Search engines and other systems may also receive structured information about authorship, dates and sources. That information is meant to reflect the same published truth a reader can inspect. It is not a hidden layer for claims the page itself cannot support.

These standards apply to substantive Journal publishing on LorriBrewer.com.