GUIDELINES

For quality science communication

IN JOURNALISM

This project has received funding from the European

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No. 824634
This resource provides a set of guide-
lines for journalists, editors and media
professionals. It was developed on the
basis of indicators and metrics identi-
fied in consultation with science jour-
nalists, science-focussed media, and
members of the public.

It serves as a checklist covering all the different

aspects of quality science journalism. The guidelines
are presented in the form of a series of questions
intended to stimulate reflection and to guide you
through all stages of content development.

These guidelines are part of a toolkit for quality

science communication in journalism, available at
questproject.eu/toolkits.
Trustworthiness
and Scientific
Rigour
3
How clear are you that estab-
lished principles of scientific
research properly underpin the
content of your story?
Have you interrogated the story
angles widely, and sought fur-
ther informed opinion or infor-
mation from respected sources
which will add perspective to the
issue and properly inform read-
ers and viewers?
Despite the pressure of impend-
ing deadlines and the desire to
be ‘first with the story’ – have you
fully verified the research find-
ings you are working from?
Have you considered the possi-
bility of biased or partial inter-
pretation in the methodology,
analysis, and reporting of the sci-
entific information you are deal-
ing with in your story?
Have you scrutinised the fac-
tual bases of the research evi-
dence you are working from and
cross-referenced across similar
research on that issue?
Does your report make clear the
source, funding and organisa-
tional affiliations of the research
findings? Whenever possible
have named scientists been
4
quoted, and their research base,
scientific methods and funding
stream been identified?
However tight your deadline,
have you widened your research
on the story beyond the PR or
press release material you have
been presented with?
Presentation
& Style Have ‘headline’ or key messages
been highlighted via the lan-
guage and structure of the
material?

Have you essentially ‘translated’ Have innovative ways of con-

complex scientific jargon into veying the key findings been 5
easy-to-understand language explored and included within the
accessible to all readers? report?

At the same time, have you Is the report comprehensive

avoided oversimplifying or sen- and readily understandable
sationalising the material leaving in its own right?
the audience anxious or con-
fused and lacking a clear view of
what is important about the
scientific findings?
Does the reporting offer clarity
and coherence – even with the
most complex and multifaceted
topic?
Have you used all the visualis-
ation techniques available within
your organisation to convey
information and statistics?
Is the communication set
within the wider public sphere
in addressing public concerns,
interests and preoccupations?
Have you used journalistic story-
telling techniques in the writing
and structure to emotionally
engage your audience?
Has the science, however com-
plex, been presented in an
appealing and innovative format?
In certain stories, the scientific infor-
mation supports the story rather
than leads it – in such cases, how well
does the balance of (often personal)
narrative with scientific underpinning
work?
Are you ‘taking your audience with
you’ in your reporting of this story?
Have you considered how to best
engage their interest and develop
their involvement and understanding? 6
Is the language clear and consistent
– and does the focus of the article
encourage further exploration of the
issues among your audience?
Are there clear and obvious in-house
channels for your audience to react to
the story and to develop it via social
media and reader responses?
Connection
to Society
Is the report appropriately
adapted to the nature of the
audience you are communicat-
ing with?
Have you considered and
addressed particular concerns of
your audience?
Is the style, language and pres-
entation of the report targeted
to the interests and concerns of
the audience?
Bearing in mind your first consid-
eration to public interest, safety 7
and security, is there a case for
assuming a campaigning stance
on this subject?
Have you invited reader and
viewer response on the topic and
on your article? And are you pre-
pared to develop the story based
on opinions and experiences
received directly from the public?
Does your story outline the pos-
sible impact and ramifications
of findings exposed in it? What
differences will they make collec-
tively to society and individually
to citizens?
Is the reporting ethically robust?
In particular this means being
impartial, well-sourced and
not resorting to alarmism/
sensationalism/clickbait.
Does the reporting follow the
appropriate ethical code for jour-
nalists and fully adhere to these
practices?
Have you scanned the report
to make sure it is accurate and
coherent?
Does the reporting make clear what the pos-
sible impact on society and everyday life of
the scientific findings might be? Is it relayed
in language and concepts people can readily
understand and relate to, making connections
with their everyday lives and experiences?
How far have divergent views been acknowl-
edged and included – without sullying the
overall message and invoking ‘false balance’? 8
Is the story located in the real world and does
it cover human preoccupations and concerns?
Science stories like many others have political
and societal implications – have these been
drawn out and explained/explored?
Have you thought about methods to maintain
contact with the audience and maintain their
involvement in the story as it develops?
 Tips and guidance to help on reporting

MATERIALS
Covid19 (IJNET)
https://ijnet.org/en/
story/10-tips- journalists-covering-covid-19

10 tips for reporting science (WAN-IFRA)

HELPFUL
https://scienceinthenewsroom.org/
resources/10-tips- for-reporting-science/

QUEST toolkit and JECT.AI writing support tool

for journalists 9
https://questproject.eu/toolkits/
 Guidelines design:
Consultation workshops were held in five Euro-
pean countries, bringing together researchers,
journalists, science communication profession-
als, and members of the public.
Contributors:
Barbara Schofield, Suzanne Franks, Rebecca
Wells (City, University of London)
Arko Olesk (Tallinn University)

The views of the workshop participants were

then collated and distilled into the guidelines
for quality science communication.

QUality and Effectiveness

in Science and Technology
4 questproject.eu communication
QUEST is a European research project
that defines, measures, and supports
quality in science communication.
The QUEST project team includes ex-
perts, scholars, and media professionals
across Europe who have come together
to investigate current issues in science
communication and to develop tools and
guidelines for improving effectiveness
in dialogue between science and wider
publics.
Venice International University (Italy)
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (Norway)
CITY University of London (UK)
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy)
Tallinn University (Estonia)
WAN-IFRA FR (France)
Science Gallery Dublin - Trinity College
Dublin (Ireland)
Agency for the Promotion of European
Research (Italy)