Editorial Transparency

Provenance Learning publishes commentary, analysis, and guidance for higher education faculty, academic leaders, and institutions working through assessment in the age of AI. Our editorial position is simple: AI may assist the writing process, but it does not replace human responsibility for the final artifact.

Some Provenance articles are substantially AI-drafted. The AI may produce full sections of a first draft, summarize source material, surface citations for verification, and test alternate phrasing. Humans then direct the work, check every claim and source, revise the text, and take responsibility for the published article. We describe this plainly because underplaying how much a tool contributed is exactly the failure our work is meant to address. AI assistance is part of the editorial workflow, not an authorial substitute.

Every published article is reviewed, revised, and approved by human authors or editors before publication. For posts involving assessment, academic integrity, AI policy, or institutional practice, that review includes attention to accuracy, source quality, faculty relevance, tone, and consistency with Provenance Learning's core commitments: evidence, transparency, trust, traceability, and human-validated judgment.

We do not publish AI-generated material without human review. We do not use AI to invent citations, fabricate evidence, or make claims that have not been checked against credible sources. When an article relies on research, survey data, standards, institutional guidance, or another external source, we cite that material and expect the source to support the claim being made. For high-stakes claims — legal cases, statistics, standards, and quotations — we verify against the primary source before publication, not against an AI's summary of it.

Our use of AI in editorial work reflects the same position we take in assessment: tool assistance can be appropriate, but the human remains responsible for the final work. A polished artifact is not enough. The judgment behind it matters.

For that reason, Provenance articles may include an editorial note when AI assistance was used in drafting or revision. The note reads:

This article was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed, revised, and approved by Provenance Learning's human authors. The claims, sources, examples, and final wording were reviewed before publication. We believe responsible AI use should be transparent, reviewable, and subject to human judgment. See our Editorial Transparency statement.

We also recognize that AI, assessment practice, and institutional policy are changing quickly. When we discover an error, outdated claim, broken citation, or unclear statement, we correct or update the article. Substantive corrections are dated and noted on the article.

Our goal is not to perform purity around AI use. Our goal is to model responsible use: clear disclosure, careful sourcing, human accountability, and reviewable judgment.