1) Purpose and Approach of the Program

This series is designed as a controlled and sustainable contribution model that works with LANT's editorial standard rather than merely collecting writings in an "open call" format. Thus:

• Current and applicable content is produced at the intersection of artificial intelligence and law.

• Participants gain visibility within LANT's editorial ecosystem.

• Readers not only read opinions; they read analyses and practice notes that have practical relevance.

2) Who can contribute?

The following profiles are prioritized (the list is not exhaustive):

• Lawyers, in-house legal teams, compliance experts

• Data protection / KVKK-GDPR professionals

• Product teams and managers (those capable of writing at the intersection of legal/compliance)

• Artificial intelligence initiatives, legaltech, and regtech teams

• Academics and researchers (those in contact with practice)

We have a brief prerequisite: The texts should be structured at a level that is "readable, sourced, and practically relevant."

3) Content Formats

The series progresses through two different formats. Participants indicate which format they will write in during application.

A) Community Brief (Short Format)

• Length: 500–800 words

• Purpose: To provide a clear conclusion based on a development/trend/risk/practical problem

• Suggested Structure:

  • “Why now?” (1 short paragraph)

  • Main insight and impacts (2–3 paragraphs or short subsections)

  • “What to do in practice?” (short recommendations / control points)

  • Sources (at least 2)

B) Practice Note (In-depth Format)

• Length: 1,000–1,500 words

• Purpose: To address a topic from a practical perspective and produce a “note” that the reader can place on their desk

• Suggested Structure:

  • Problem definition / context

  • Short framework: concepts + regulatory basis + risks

  • Practical recommendations: processes, checklists, contractual provisions, governance approach

  • Sources (at least 3–6)

Note: The text will be editorially reviewed to ensure compliance with the LANT publication standard regarding subtitles, flow, language simplification, and citation.

4) Topic Pool (AI x Law)

The following titles are an example of a "scope menu". Topics outside of these can also be considered; however, they need to be clarified with LANT editors during the pitch stage.

1. AI literacy obligation under the EU AI Act: how should in-house training be designed?

2. Minimum clauses in AI procurement contracts: auditing, logging, data processing, IP

3. Using LLM from the KVKK/GDPR perspective: data minimization and retention

4. Automated decision-making and profiling: risk mapping and governance

5. Model cards, risk registers, technical documentation: what should jurists look at?

6. Prompt governance: who can input what data into the system?

7. Internal investigation and evidence management with AI: ethical and evidentiary dimensions

8. Claims of transparency and misleading risks: intersection of marketing and law

9. Turkey/EU/UK regulatory trends: comparative analysis in a short “brief” format

10. “Design with compliance” for product teams: linking AI risk management to the product cycle

5) Application and Assessment Process

The LANT Contributor Series progresses through a three-stage editorial flow:

Stage 1 — Pitch (Mandatory)

Contributors send a short pitch before proposing a writing.

Pitch content:

• Topic title

• 200–300 word summary (your thesis)

• 3 subheadings (the backbone of the article)

• Target reader (who should read?)

• Source/basis (which regulation, guideline, decision, report, etc.?)

Stage 2 — Draft Submission

If the pitch is approved, the participant submits the writing. Submission format:

• Google Doc / Word

• Author bio (2–3 sentences) + LinkedIn link (optional)

• If available, institutional/company information and conflict of interest statement

Stage 3 — Edit & Publication Approval

LANT editors review the text from the following perspectives:

• Quality of language and expression (readability)

• Source and verifiability

• Legal risk (misleading statements, lack of context, reputational risk)

• Compliance with LANT publication format

If necessary, a single round of revision will be requested. Final publication approval will be granted after revision.

6) Timing and Editorial Service Level

To maintain a sustainable publication schedule during the pilot period, the following process is targeted:

• Pitch response time: 48 hours

• Draft editing time: 5 business days

• Publication planning: first available slot after approval

Note: During busy periods, the timeline may extend; however, participants will be informed in all cases.

7) Publication and Distribution Package (Participant's Gain)

Visibility provided by LANT for each published content:

• Publication on the LANT website (with author bio and links)

• LANT LinkedIn share (tagging + short quote)

• Instagram story and/or post (short visual summary of the content)

• Announcement in the Telegram group

Additionally, when the series reaches sufficient volume, collective publications may be planned in the format of "monthly selections" or "thematic pages."

8) Publication Policy and Legal/Ethical Framework

LANT implements the following publication policy to maintain quality and reliability in community writings:

• Contents are for general informational purposes; they do not constitute legal advice.

• Primary sources (official legislation, institutional guidelines, decisions, reports, etc.) should be used whenever possible in the texts.

• In examples where a brand/person is mentioned, verifiability and reputational risk are taken into account; editors may request anonymization or removal if deemed necessary.

• The participant must clearly state any conflicts of interest and the institution they are associated with.