1. Topic selection (human decision). Our editorial team identifies topics based on scientific relevance, public interest, and gaps in existing media coverage. Topic selection is never automated.
2. Research and data gathering (AI-assisted). We use AI tools to survey large volumes of scientific literature, institutional reports (IPCC, UNEP, WHO), government databases, and verified news sources. AI helps us process and cross-reference data at a scale that would be impractical for a small team.
3. Drafting and synthesis (AI-assisted, human-supervised). Initial drafts are generated with AI assistance based on the gathered research. These drafts serve as structured working documents — not finished articles.
4. Editorial review and validation (human). Every article is reviewed by at least one member of our editorial team before publication. This review covers factual accuracy, source verification, tone, balance, and compliance with our editorial standards. Articles are edited, rewritten where necessary, and approved by a named editor.
5. Source attribution. We cite our sources within articles. When claims are based on scientific studies, we link to the original papers or institutional reports whenever possible.
6. Post-publication corrections. If errors are identified after publication, we correct them promptly and note the correction at the bottom of the article with a date and description of the change.

AI Transparency Statement

• We use artificial intelligence as a research and drafting tool. We believe in full transparency about this practice.
• Our AI-assisted workflow uses several language models and research tools, including Perplexity (for source discovery), Gemini, Grok, Claude, and other models (for analysis and drafting assistance). These tools are orchestrated through automated pipelines that help us process information efficiently.
• However, AI does not make editorial decisions. It does not choose what we cover, what angle we take, or what conclusions we draw. Every article reflects human editorial judgment and is published under the responsibility of our editorial team.
• We have chosen to be open about AI use because we believe it is the future of independent journalism — enabling small, independent teams to compete with large media organizations on depth and scope, without compromising on accuracy or ethics.
• Our editorial voices — the distinct analytical perspectives you may notice across our articles — are structured writing frameworks designed to bring diverse viewpoints to complex topics. They are tools, not fabrications. The humans behind Planet Keeper take full responsibility for every word published.

Editorial Standards

• Planet Keeper adheres to the following principles:
• Accuracy. We base our reporting on verifiable data from recognized institutions and peer-reviewed research. When we cannot verify a claim, we say so.
• Independence. We accept no advertising, sponsored content, or funding from organizations we cover. Our only revenue comes from reader subscriptions.
• Fairness. We present multiple perspectives on contentious topics. We distinguish clearly between established facts, expert analysis, and editorial interpretation.
• Transparency. We disclose our methods, our use of AI tools, and our funding sources. We correct errors publicly.
• Accountability. Every article is attributable to our editorial team. Readers can contact us directly with questions, corrections, or concerns.

Contact & Corrections

General inquiries: contact@planet-keeper.org
Corrections & factual disputes: contact@planet-keeper.org
Location: Innovation Park QI-I, Quartier de l’Innovation, Lausanne, Vaud 1015, Switzerland
Social media: Facebook · LinkedIn
If you believe an article contains a factual error, please contact us. We review all correction requests and update articles within 48 hours when warranted.