Do You Trust Your Content?

Publishers want to get their books, especially their higher education titles, to market at the most opportune time. This isn’t news. When publishers look to publish an initial edition of a textbook, they attempt to find a window in which competing textbooks, if they exist, aren’t also introducing updated editions. For example, if Publisher X wants to introduce a new text on criminology, they’ll study the publishing patterns of Publisher Y and Publisher Z, who already have criminology texts on the market. And as they study past publication dates, they’ll attempt to project the future, look for an open window when Y and Z aren’t expected to publish an updated revision, and target that window for their new title.

Oftentimes, this causes stress on an already tight schedule. That identified publication date becomes important to hit because it matters. It’s significant. It’s that publisher’s best chance to make a splash with their new investment. And if they miss their window, the publisher then has to ask itself, which is better option: holding the first printing of the text to the next best open window or publishing it anyway, competition be damned.

It’s a horrible question for a publisher to ask itself, so the best-case scenario is simply not to miss the window.

It’s a task that’s way harder than it looks, because books are written by people, and people get sick, take vacations, have kids, and go on sabbatical, all while holding down the responsibilities of the primary job that actually pays their bills. That 58-chapter, 80,000-word text the publisher needs them to write so badly? The one that requires planning and research and too much coffee? They do that in the evenings, on weekends, and whenever they can spare an extra 30 minutes.  

It’s a flawed system, one that often goes awry, because people are flawed. We’re not machines that can simply pump out what looks to be a well-written, authoritative chapter or online module in three minutes.

Oh…wait a second. It’s 2026. There may not be people who can craft chapters and materials for higher learning instantaneously, but there are people who believe AI can.

The AI Question

Authors and publishers are using AI. And in most cases, they’re not hiding it, but they’re not really broadcasting it, either. This means that as a consumer of content, content that needs to be well-written, well-researched, and authoritative, a question you should keep in mind when evaluating content is this:

How was this written?

It’s a question that matters more in some places than others. A blog post about baking tips? The stakes are relatively low. A textbook chapter or an online module about pharmacology, structural engineering, or child development? That’s when the stakes become quite a bit higher, because this kind of content, written poorly, can lead to the worst kinds of harm.

Questions Worth Asking

Before you teach from something or stake your learning on it, consider asking these questions:

• How were subject-matter experts utilized in writing the content? Did they have the role of primary author? Did SMEs review the content? Approve it for publication?

• If AI was used:

  • How was it used?

  • What role did it have: reviewer, author, editor, or copyeditor?

  • How reliant was the overall process on it?

  • What’s the editorial process? Is there a human editor, a fact-checker, a peer reviewer, or a technical consultant in the workflow?

• Are sources cited or references available? In high-stakes disciplines, content should be traceable back to primary research or established standards.

• What’s the publisher’s stated position on AI use? Do they have one? Transparency here signals integrity.

AI has value when it comes to writing. It can help craft content outlines, review drafts, and provide feedback. It helps, and using AI as an assistant is not inherently problematic, at least when it comes to the kind certain kinds of content.

What’s problematic is when the output of an AI tool gets published without meaningful human review and then presented as authoritative.

If you’re an instructor, push for transparency. Ask publishers about their use of AI. Talk to your customer service reps and ask them about their company’s editorial standards.

If you’re a student, learn to treat sourcing as a skill. Learn to do your own research, including how to identify trustworthy, authoritative organizations and publications. Learn to trace claims. Understand that the role of an author has changed, and will forever be changing, perhaps from now until the end of publishing as we know it. (Which could be tomorrow, but let’s hope not.)

Trust Has to be Earned

Quality content still exists. We know it does, because we work with quality content every day.  At Stoic ProjectWorks, we get to see editorial rigor in action and work with people who are extremely proud of the content they’re producing.

We also work with people who have an important stake in the game: themselves. One day, hopefully many years from now, those students learning from the materials we’re helping to produce might be the very people caring for one of us following a medical scare. So, yeah, we’re being a little selfish, because one day one of our lives might be in their hands.

How was the content they learned from authored and edited? It won’t matter if we ask the question then, because we’ll be asking it too late.

Don’t be too late. Ask the question today.