Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Mississippi Today, backed by an NBC exec, aims to be the Texas Tribune of its undercovered state
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Sept. 12, 2011, 1:35 a.m.

Some scientists want to check research stories pre-publication

Three British scientists say should be allowed to review stories about their work before publication.

Overall, since press credibility relies on both accuracy and independence, and since the question of allowing sources to check articles (or parts of them) raises a tension between these pillars, the burning question is: where should the balance be struck?

We believe that public trust in science, and in science reporting, is harmed far more by inaccuracy than by non-independence. Contrary to Bhattacharya’s claim that “the reader is not a scientist’s first concern,” public understanding is our overriding concern when communicating with journalists.

Ananyo Bhattacharya, the chief online editor of the journal Nature, argued last month:

Science hacks wouldn’t dream of sending a remotely controversial story out to their sources. But scientists have a vested interest in the way their work is portrayed in the media. Practically any story has the potential to be “controversial”, for example by having an impact on a scientist’s reputation or their next grant application. A journalist, on the other hand, must try to be independent — and seen to be so — if they are to be credible.

In September, Chicago Tribune science and medical writer Trine Tsouderos debated with scientists about the idea of reading back quotes to sources for the purposes of fact-checking.

POSTED     Sept. 12, 2011, 1:35 a.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Mississippi Today, backed by an NBC exec, aims to be the Texas Tribune of its undercovered state
“Proportionally, we hope to do just as well.”
Saying publishers’ anti-adblock tactics are illegal, a European privacy advocate plans his attack
“The amount of ire and vitriol that has been thrown my way over the past four or five months is a very clear indication that [publishers are] absolutely terrified…If they want my advice on how to do it legally, they can pay me for it.”
Should it stay or should it go: News outlets scramble to cover Britain’s decision to exit the European Union
Online, readers stayed up for the results: Peak traffic to BBC News, for instance, was around 4 a.m. GMT, and by 11 a.m. BBC.com had received 88 million page views.
What to read next
0BuzzFeed’s Another Round podcast is partnering with a social audio app to let listeners submit their stories
The podcast is working with the app, Rolltape, to make it easier for listeners to submit their own audio.
0In 60 days, drone journalism will be legally possible in any U.S. newsroom
“There are still challenges, and we haven’t even talked about state and local laws that have been piling up while the FAA lumbered toward today. But the future of drones in journalism is much brighter today than it has ever been.”
0Honolulu Civil Beat, after six years of trying life as a for-profit, is becoming a nonprofit after all
The Pierre Omidyar-backed news site is dropping its paywall and launching a membership program as part of the change.
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
Semana
The Batavian
NPR
Circa
New Haven Independent
I-News
Investigative Reporting Workshop
GlobalPost
Google
Frontline
Arizona Guardian
Neighborlogs