Watchdog science journalism: crucial yet precarious work
How do journalists act as watchdogs of science? New qualitative research led by University of Amsterdam media scholar Alice Fleerackers sheds light on the labour‑intensive nature of watchdog science journalism, a form of critical journalism that scrutinises science. It shows that practical feasibility sometimes takes precedence over public interest when deciding whether or not to run a story, particularly in newsrooms with limited resources. The findings, recently published in Science Communication, underscore the precarity of a form of journalism that is essential for public trust in science, yet operates under severe pressure.
Problematic use of generative AI, fraud and data manipulation, publications in predatory journals and paper mills: research integrity issues regularly make the news. Behind these stories are specialised journalists who take on a “watchdog” role, investigating problematic science and holding researchers to account. Until now, little was known about how they work and what obstacles they face. Fleerackers and her colleagues from Bournemouth University, Retraction Watch and the University of British Columbia address this gap through in‑depth interviews with science journalists in Canada and the United Kingdom.
Time‑consuming investigative work
Watchdog science journalism is extremely labour‑intensive and time consuming. ‘This work requires much more than a single phone call to an expert and a quick quote,’ says Fleerackers. ‘Journalists have to scrutinise a wealth of sources and documents: reading articles, reconstructing data, delving into complex scientific methods and talking to informants. This can easily turn into an investigation that takes weeks, sometimes months.’
High threshold of evidence
Gathering such a high level of evidence is crucial, because there are often legal and reputational risks at stake. But the burden of proof can also clash with structural constraints. The lengthy turnaround time of watchdog journalism is at odds the fast-paced news cycle and the pressure to attract as large an audience as possible, prompting editorial teams to opt for easier, better‑performing stories instead. Budget cuts, a lack of in‑house expertise and limited legal and fact‑checking support also play a major role: watchdog stories are expensive and risky.
On top of that, there are other barriers to access, such as institutions and communications departments acting as gatekeepers. Finally, national context and legislation increase the risks, making it even more difficult to bring sensitive issues to light. Taken together, these factors mean that even research integrity issues that are clearly newsworthy never make it to publication.
Recommendations
Only a fraction of the millions of scientific articles published worldwide each year involve research integrity issues. Yet flawed studies can attract extensive media attention long before they are retracted – if they are retracted at all. This can lead to misperceptions of health and science‑related risks and benefits, and may undermine public trust in science.
Fleerackers says: ‘Critical journalism about science is extremely important, and it is crucial that we protect this form of reporting. Media organisations have to create more scope for specialised investigative work: time, training and the opportunity to really investigate these complex issues. Funders, universities and research integrity bodies can also offer active support, for instance through collaborations or grants for investigative science journalism.’
In this way, Fleerackers argues, we can foster a more transparent public discussion about science: ‘When research integrity issues are carefully investigated and explained, it helps both researchers and the public better understand what can go wrong and how these problems can be addressed.’
Methodology
For this study, the researchers interviewed 21 journalists who had recently published stories on research integrity, ranging from fraud and data manipulation to problematic publishing practices. Eleven journalists work for Canadian media, ten for British news outlets. The interviews took place between September 2024 and June 2025. The researchers asked about role perceptions, motivations, working practices and barriers. Where possible, the journalists walked the researchers through a specific story step by step: from the initial tip-off through to publication, including the dilemmas they encountered along the way.
Journal
Science Communication
Method of Research
Survey
Subject of Research
Not applicable
Article Title
Holding Science to Account: A Qualitative Study of Practices and Challenges of Watchdog Science Journalism
Article Publication Date
12-Jul-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment