Why journalists don't send their articles to researchers beforehand

You may have given a press interview on a research topic. You wanted to make sure everything was understood correctly, so you asked the journalist to send you the article before it appeared. You were unexpectedly refused. And it just doesn't seem right. Sound familiar?

The Scientist wrote about the main points of disagreement between researchers and journalists, and the advantages of giving an interview. Main ideas:

Why journalists ask for everything "now"

Some scientists say they are annoyed at being given short notice before interviews. But rather than the reporter being disorganised or not respecting the researcher's time, "it's the fact that journalism moves very quickly".

Why do journalists refuse to send questions in advance

Another point of confusion is why journalists do not usually send interviewees a full list of prepared questions. For journalists, this practice helps ensure a spontaneous and lively conversation and avoids third parties, such as university press offices, influencing the answers.

Why not send the article to the researcher for review

Most journalists do not send drafts of articles for review by the people they interview. Very few of them sometimes send only quotes for validation. Reporters may not allow interviewees to influence the wording of published material. This is for much the same reasons that journalists would not give a politician editorial control over an article.

A personal addition: when you work with a science communicator in your own institution on a press release, article, blog, interview, you will always receive the final texts for approval.

Why the final article looks different than the researcher would like

The final article may present the information differently from what scientists would have done or may omit aspects important to them. Here it is important to note that some parts of the writing process cannot be controlled by a reporter, such as headlines, which are often written by editors.

Why is there too little of the interview in the article

Sometimes only a small fragment of the interview or nothing at all appears in the actual publication, although it was a significant effort for the researcher. Even when a significantly smaller fragment of the interview appears, the important thing to remember is that, because of the appearance of that fragment, many more people found out about that research or project. A second perspective - not mentioned in The Scientist, but one that I mention in workshops for researchers - is that a discussion with a researcher helps the journalist understand the field better and write a better story. In addition, journalists usually remain grateful and will offer further opportunities for visibility to the person who was interviewed.

The Scientist also offers some tips on how to improve those parts of an interview that the researcher can control: for example, making the message as clear as possible. You can read the rest here (language: Romanian).