The editorial team behind this NotebookLM reference
Starting Point
Three editors maintain this reference. Each owns a domain — product and features, privacy and policy, and audio and media — and follows a structured review cycle to keep pages accurate as the underlying tool changes.
An independent reference is only as reliable as the people who maintain it. This page introduces the three editors who cover different aspects of the AI research notebook, explains how they source and verify information, and describes the review cycle that determines when pages get updated.
Editorial profiles
Anastasia G. Fjellheim — Editor-in-Chief, Features & Product
Anastasia leads the editorial direction of this reference and is the primary voice behind the features, guide, and how-to sections. Before joining this project, she was Editor-in-Chief at Quanta Review Press in Oslo, where she oversaw science and technology coverage with a focus on making complex research findings accessible to general audiences. She brings the same discipline to product documentation: claims need a source, speculation is labelled, and reader utility comes before comprehensiveness.
At this reference, Anastasia owns the features overview, the guide, and the how-to walkthrough. She reviews those pages on a five-to-six-week cycle and runs fresh hands-on testing whenever Google announces a significant update. Her sourcing rule: if it cannot be verified in the product or in Google's published documentation, it does not go on the page without an explicit caveat.
Bartholomew K. Idrissi — Privacy, Policy & Research Integrity Lead
Bartholomew covers the parts of this reference that intersect with data governance, institutional research, and policy. He is currently completing a doctoral degree at Wentworth Technical University in Manchester, where his thesis examines how large-language-model tools change citation practices in academic research. That context shapes how he writes: the data and privacy page, for example, distinguishes between what the product's terms commit to and what they leave open, because those distinctions matter to researchers and institutional buyers.
Bartholomew also monitors how the AI notebook is discussed in academic and policy circles, surfacing references that belong on the sourcing and uploads pages and flagging when independent regulatory guidance — such as updates from NIST or OECD — is relevant to the tool's documented behaviour. He reviews policy-related pages on a six-week cycle and more frequently when regulatory frameworks shift.
Philomena R. Yamaguchi-Braithwaite — Audio, Accessibility & Learning Design Lead
Philomena brings an instructional design background to this reference. As an Instructional Designer at Harborline Learning Group in Victoria, she has spent several years evaluating AI tools for educational deployment, which means she approaches the audio overviews feature and the sharing and collaboration surfaces from the perspective of someone who has tested them in real classroom settings.
She owns the audio overviews page, the mobile app reference, and the sections of the guide that cover accessibility and pedagogical use cases. Her reviews prioritise accuracy around the features that change most often — audio-language availability, mobile app OS requirements, and Plus-tier generation limits — and she maintains a running log of observed changes that feeds into the quarterly update cycle.
Sourcing policy
Every factual claim on this reference traces to one of three source types: Google's own published documentation (help articles, blog posts, terms of service), directly observable product behaviour (tested by at least one editor), or a named third-party source cited inline. Where only one of those source types is available, the page notes the limitation. Where none is available, the claim does not appear.
This site does not publish product claims from press releases without independent verification. When a new feature is announced, the relevant page is updated to note the announcement — but the detailed description waits until an editor can test the feature directly or a reliable technical account is publicly available. For independent perspectives on AI tool governance, the OECD AI principles portal is a primary reference the team consults when evaluating policy-related claims.
The review cycle
Pages fall into one of three review tiers. Fast-moving pages — pricing, source limits, audio-language availability, tier caps — are reviewed every four to six weeks. Standard pages — feature descriptions, how-to guides, comparison tables — are reviewed quarterly. Evergreen pages — history, architecture explainers, context pages — are reviewed twice a year or when a major announcement makes an earlier review necessary. All pages carry a last-updated date in the metadata.
| Editor | Focus area | Review cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Anastasia G. Fjellheim | Features, guide, how-to walkthroughs | 5–6 weeks (fast-moving pages); quarterly (evergreen) |
| Bartholomew K. Idrissi | Data privacy, policy, research integrity, sourcing | 6 weeks; as-needed when regulatory context shifts |
| Philomena R. Yamaguchi-Braithwaite | Audio overviews, mobile app, accessibility, education use cases | 4–5 weeks (audio/mobile); quarterly (education guides) |
Reader contributions
Readers who spot errors, know of a feature the reference has not documented, or have a primary source that contradicts something on a page are the most valuable contributors to keeping this reference accurate. The corrections process is described on the contact page. The team reviews every submission and acknowledges verified corrections on the affected page.
Questions about the editorial team
How the team works, where the information comes from, and how to get involved.
Is the editorial team affiliated with Google?
No. The team is entirely independent. None of the editors have an employment, contractual, or commercial relationship with Google or Alphabet. The site documents a publicly available product the way a consumer guide would document any widely used application — using the product's name descriptively and citing Google's own documentation as a primary source.
How does the team verify information before publishing?
Claims are sourced from Google's published documentation, directly observable product behaviour tested by an editor, or a named third-party source cited inline. Where the team has tested behaviour but cannot find official confirmation, the text says so explicitly. Editorial inferences are flagged as such and distinguished clearly from documented facts.
How often is content reviewed and updated?
Fast-moving pages — pricing, source limits, audio-language support — are reviewed every four to six weeks. Standard how-to guides and feature descriptions are reviewed quarterly. Evergreen explainers are reviewed twice a year. When Google ships a major update, the affected pages are reviewed within five business days. Each page shows a last-updated date in the metadata.
Can I suggest a topic or flag an error?
Yes. The contact page describes what to include for a correction submission. Corrections with a primary source link move fastest. The team replies within 48 to 72 hours on business days and publishes verified corrections within five business days, with a revision note on the affected page.
Have a correction or suggestion?
The fastest way to improve this reference is to send a correction with a primary source link. The team reviews every submission and replies within 48 to 72 hours.
Contact the editorial teamMore from this reference
Readers who want to understand the scope of this project before reaching out often start with the about page, which covers the site's purpose, independence disclosure, and update rhythm. The contact page explains the corrections policy and maps inquiry types to expected response windows. The most-read content on this reference is the features overview, the how-to-use guide, and the pricing breakdown.
For readers evaluating the tool's data commitments, the data and privacy page is the most detailed treatment on this site. The long-form guide covers every major surface of the research notebook in depth. The help desk maps common problems to the right support channel, which is often a faster route than contacting this editorial team for account-level issues. The review and AI primer round out the site's independent perspective on the tool.