GoKawiilLonni Besançon speaking at the 2025 World Conference of Science Journalists in Pretoria, South Africa.Credit: World Conference of Science Journalists 2025
Last December, I participated in a plenary session at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Pretoria, called ‘Cheats, sleuths, and journalists: How to cover misconduct in science’.
My invitation to the four-day event came about as a result of my sleuthing work: I’ve used my scientific background to investigate problematic COVID-19 papers and misconduct in peer review, mostly in my free time.
The conference was aimed at investigative reporters, editors, data journalists and press officers, and was unlike any I’ve ever attended. I thought that I knew all that there was to know about the intricacies of scrutinizing and correcting science, but there was still much to learn at the event. Seeing the ‘other side’ of reporting on issues in academia — such as fraud and misconduct — was eye-opening.
I realized that many of the things that we scientists complain about in media coverage are problems that we have helped to create. I have, for instance, often complained that the authors of some early COVID-19 papers that I identified problems with had an easy ride in the media1.
But I learnt that one reason this happens is because too few scientists answer journalists directly or, in my case, take the initiative to contact them and explain the problems with such papers. Often this is because we do not understand how good journalism works. The conference made me reflect on how stronger collaboration with science journalists could have helped in some of my own sleuthing work.
Science journalists need our time — not just our quotes
One recurring message from journalists was strikingly simple: they need scientists to be available. Many explained how difficult it can be to get researchers to answer questions. In many cases, a journalist needs a lot more than a quick quote for an article that is more or less already written.
Instead, they need involvement, critical feedback, context, suggestions of other papers to look at, deep analysis and more. To draw a comparison with academic publishing, they need us to be active co-authors and investigators, rather than a researcher who came to a single meeting and now wants their name on the final paper.
Too often, however, scientists decline to answer press questions: we’re busy, answer weeks late or redirect journalists to press releases rather than engaging with them. And then some of us complain when the coverage lacks nuance. And although it is true that scientists and sleuths are busy and our universities might not value us spending time with journalists, we owe it to the public — those funding a lot of our research — to devote time to help science journalists.
... continue reading