Editorial and AI Standards

Editorial mission

Theory Commons publishes to help readers understand how ideas connect. Content should be accurate, clear about assumptions, intellectually honest about uncertainty, and structured to develop understanding rather than merely provide an answer.

Human oversight and attribution

Published work should identify its author or responsible editorial group. Final academic and editorial responsibility rests with the named human author or reviewer. Author qualifications should be represented accurately and should match the subject’s level and consequences.

Sources and verification

Sources should favor primary research, authoritative institutions, recognized reference works, and reputable educational materials. Citations should enable readers to locate the supporting material. Mathematical claims should be checked by derivation, proof, computation, or independent review as appropriate. Scientific claims should be checked against current evidence, units, assumptions, and accepted domain practice.

Corrections and version updates

Substantive errors should be corrected promptly. Updated dates should reflect meaningful revisions rather than cosmetic edits. Where context requires it, a correction should explain what changed. Older content may be revised as evidence, standards, terminology, or educational needs change.

Editorial independence and conflicts

Authors and reviewers should disclose material conflicts that could reasonably affect coverage. Sponsorships and paid relationships must be clearly disclosed. Advertising and commercial considerations must not determine academic conclusions, suppress warranted corrections, or alter the honest presentation of evidence.

Use of artificial intelligence

AI tools may assist research, drafting, editing, coding, accessibility work, or visual development. AI output is not treated as an authority and must not be presented as established fact without appropriate human verification. Sources suggested by AI must be located and checked directly.

Qualified human review must consider mathematical correctness, scientific accuracy, citations, originality, safety, clarity, and possible fabricated details. Final responsibility remains with the named human author or reviewer.

Generated and edited images

Generated images may be used for illustration when they do not misrepresent evidence or a real event. Scientific diagrams should be checked for conceptual accuracy. Captions or surrounding context should distinguish an illustrative rendering from measured data, documentary photography, or an authoritative technical drawing when confusion is reasonably possible.

Legacy-content review

These standards govern work going forward. They do not assert that every existing page has already completed the same documented review. Theory Commons should audit legacy content for sourcing, mathematical and scientific verification, attribution, accessibility, and AI-assisted provenance.

Requests and corrections

Readers may request a topic, suggest an improvement, or report a possible error through the Requests page. A useful correction request identifies the page, exact passage or formula, the concern, and supporting evidence. Editorial review—not popularity—determines whether and how a correction is made.

Contact

Policy questions, privacy requests, permission requests, and accessibility feedback may be submitted through the Theory Commons Requests page. A public legal or business mailing address has not yet been approved for publication.