As a journalist, you’re likely used to jumping on breaking news, such as an emerging infectious disease or unfolding natural disaster, even when you don’t have all the information. Rapidly shifting or developing issues often involve science that’s still shaking out.
A fundamental concept to keep in mind is that science—like breaking news—is an iterative process. This means that early findings are often preliminary and case-specific. As researchers conduct further studies and build off each others’ work, scientific understanding shifts. Theories might be improved upon, disproven, or corrected over time.
Covering evolving science with clarity and accuracy requires specific strategies to help you stick to the facts even when the ground is shifting under your feet.
As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, all kinds of researchers went into overdrive. Experts in infectious diseases, public health, and vaccines churned out new findings rapidly in an effort to understand the spreading virus. Scientists also increasingly shared their unpublished work in the form of preprints, early versions of manuscripts published online before undergoing peer review.
Covering preprints and other preliminary research isn’t forbidden, but it can be risky, especially if the findings are found to be overblown or incorrect. Unpublished work requires extra vetting to make sure the science is sound.
In the traditional publication process, outside experts evaluate studies by vetting their rationale and methods, checking for errors, and making sure the researchers’ conclusions are supported by the data they collected. It often takes several rounds (and many months) of peer review for a paper to be accepted for publication—or, a paper may end up being rejected.
The lack of expert review is the key difference between preprints and published scientific articles. The same goes for conference presentations, where researchers often present preliminary findings from their latest studies.
That said, sharing early findings increases transparency in science, allowing researchers to get their work out there for fellow scientists and the public to learn from and critique.
Here are five tips for navigating a developing situation and reporting on preliminary findings:
It can be tempting to break an exciting unpublished finding you discover in a preprint or see shared online, but don’t let up on your journalistic instincts. Ask yourself whether the results are important enough to your readers to cover before the results are evaluated through the publication process.
Call trusted experts you’ve interviewed before and enlist public information officers (PIOs) to help you find someone who can give you their initial take on early findings as you decide whether to do a story.
Does the principal investigator come from a reputable institution? Look up their history of published studies—are there a lot of them and are they cited frequently by other researchers?
Since preliminary work isn’t peer-reviewed, conduct your own version through rigorous reporting. Reach out to several experts in the field who were not involved with the research in question to get their comments on a study, especially its potential weaknesses. Keep reporting until you have a sense of what researchers think about the unpublished work.
As you read the manuscript, note any points of confusion. Do you have any questions or concerns about the methods or conclusions? Does the study appear to move the needle on a big issue in a field, or does it answer smaller, less consequential questions? Get your questions answered during interviews with the study authors and outside experts, so you know how to frame the findings properly in your paper.
1 /
‼️Watch out for how the findings are framed in other copy, too, such as headlines and social media posts.
3 /
Frame findings appropriately as part of the iterative process of science. Focus on how the new results add to the conversation about a developing issue, rather than trying to deliver a sweeping picture of a field.
5 /
Don’t forgo fact-checking standards just because you’re reporting on a developing issue.
