A head‘s up to all those interested in science writing or, more widely, editing or journalism: make some time to head over to David Kroll’s blog and read his article Trine Tsouderos on This Week in Virology: When do you fact-check article content with sources? and the especially the extensive commentary in response to it.
The question at hand is checking the facts of an article with the source, in the case of science writing – the scientist. Many established (and notable) science writers have already offered thoughts.
My modest contribution is a passing reference to a passage from Elise Hancock’s ideas into words from page 46. Let me share the full passage with you. She writes that she views science writing as a collaboration of sorts, with scientists presenting material she translates for a wider readership. Moving on to the subject of showing copy she writes,
And finally, consider the vexing issue of showing copy. This issue is always live, and more so for students.
Here again, the notion of collaboration helps you out. I usually say, ’You will have the opportunity to fact-check, because I want it right as much as you do. And of course, I will be delighted to hear any other suggestions you may have about the piece.’ The key word is fact-check. Beyond facts, there is no commitment to let scientists rewrite my words under my byline (as distinct from hearing suggestions), or even to literally show them copy. I do make an absolute commitment to get the material right.
On such a basis, showing copy or iffy parts of the copy can work very well. Do it in person, however. Sit right there, saying things like, ’We’ll say X, then,’ and leave with the amended copy. If you leave it, the scientist will get second thoughts, and you will be in big trouble. For short, straight-forward stuff, read the iffy bits over the phone.
You’ll see that the discussion at David’s blog has a similar focus, but with different views and angles presented.
A number of those commenting at David’s blog have compared the difference of science writing with (say) political reporting. I had similar thoughts on reading David’s article. It struck me that this comment to a blog article about erroneous statements by creationists was also relevant (somewhat bizarrely given the very different topic):
Their goal is political, not academic. Fraud is not permitted in academia, but it is encouraged in politics.
This perhaps points in the direction of why checking political sources might not wash in the way that checking a scientific source might – ?
(This also has echoes of an article I wrote ruminating that a key thing in asking about science is to ask what is known, not opinions.)
Head on over and read what experienced science writers have to say on showing copy to the source.
Other articles on Code for life: