Research is published in scientific journals, where independent scientists read them to ensure the quality of the research in a process called peer review.
You can often trust peer-reviewed research more than other types of reports.
It is easy to conclude that if a new report comes from a university, the findings are credible and solid. But unfortunately, that is not guaranteed.
The most reliable studies are generally found in scientific journals that publish peer-reviewed research results. These studies’ validity and quality have been assessed and affirmed by independent scientists.
If independent scientists find that a study has been poorly conducted, it will be rejected and not published in the scientific journal.
New knowledge promoted in reports from interest groups, public authorities, research institutes or research press releases from companies do not offer that assurance. Neither do unpublished results from research institutions.
Therefore, the first thing you as a journalist should do when you are presented with new research is to check whether the work has been published in a scientific journal or book.
\ Download the guide
This article is part of the guide 11 tips for journalists: How to avoid blunders when reporting on science. The guide is accessible in three formats:
Online articles regarding each of the 11 tips.
The full guide of 11 tips as a PDF-file.
The 11 tips as a checklist, a one-pager.
The Danish tabloid newspaper B.T. appears not to have taken that precaution when it published an article with the headline: ‘This is why you should NEVER drink tea in the office’.
‘Scientists have studied tea bags from offices, and the result is frightening: They contain on average 17 times more bacteria than ... toilet seats’, the article claimed, quoting the British newspaper The Independent.
The story’s origin was a press release from the cleaning company Initial, which had paid for the study and did not submit it for peer review.
Look for the peer review
As a rule of thumb, you can be more confident that information is accurate if the research you are reporting on has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.
Peer review and scientific journals are the best indicators of credible knowledge, but they do not eliminate the need for you as a journalist to think critically about the research, potential errors and theories that are later disproven.
Here are some trends you should be aware of:
More and more studies are being published via so-called ‘preprint servers’ before they have been through peer review.
Always read preprint studies with extra reservations — and always point out that it is a preprint study you mention in your article or broadcast.
There are also outright fake journals (so-called predatory journals) that, for a fee, will publish anything remotely resembling scientific work.
You can google your way to resources such as Beall’s List, which lists suspected predatory journals.
Read more tips by clicking the blinking icons at the left in the graphic below.
\ About the Science Journalism Guide
This guide is for journalists and journalism students who are working on science and research news.
It provides 11 specific tips on how to avoid common pitfalls when covering science material.
The guide is written by journalists at the leading Danish popular science site Videnskab.dk.
It summarizes our many years of experience and the best solutions for communicating research and science critically and nuanced and with credibility.
Help us learn
The guide is based on our own experiences as journalists at Videnskab.dk, and we have received feedback and input from several talented scientists, communicators and journalism students.
It is important to emphasize that the guide sets out only general guidelines and rules of thumb.
No two stories are alike, and you will probably come across science stories where the guide is lacking or where it doesn’t make sense to follow all the tips. In other words, the 11 tips in the booklet are not set in stone.
If you have ideas or suggestions for how our guide — or our journalism at Videnskab.dk — can be improved, we would always like to hear from you. If you have questions, or if you are interested in a presentation on science journalism from Videnskab.dk, you are also welcome to contact us. You can write to us at redaktion@videnskab.dk.
The guide has been compiled by
Lise Brix, Ditte Svane-Knudsen, Anne Ringgaard, Thomas Hoffmann, Frederik Guy Hoff Sonne og Marie Barse.
Editing and layout: Jonas Salomonsen og Jon Mathorne.
Illustrations: Thøger Junker.
Translation: Stephanie Lammers-Clark. Proofread by Randy B. Hecht.
©Copyright and publisher: Videnskab.dk.
Thanks for help, input and feedback
Videnskab.dk has recieved economic support for our work with developing and sharing knowledge about science journalism from Den Fynske Bladfond, a foundation that supports free press in Denmark.
The following has provided valuable input and feedback:
Claus Emmeche (Associate Professor), Eske Willerslev (Professor), Felix Riede (Professor, AU), Gunver Lystbæk Vestergård (PhD in science journalism), Jesper Lesager Christensen (Journalism Student), Karin Frei (Professor), Kresten Roland Johansen (Lecturer, science journalism), Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen (Associate Professor,), Lasse Laustsen (Associate Professor), Mads Faurschou Knudsen (Associate Professor), Maja Horst (Professor), Mikkel Gerken (Professor), Oluf Danielsen (External Lecturer), Peter Hyldgård (Chairman, Danish Science Journalists), Simon Taarnskov Aabech (Journalism Student), Søren Kjørup (Philosopher, Emeritus), Andreas Søndergaard Petersen (Journalist, TjekDet) as well as journalism students at Roskilde University and Danish School of Media and Journalism.
