Press & Media | Resources, Projects & People

Contemporary science journalism is defined by the way people, projects and resources are combined to turn complex research into credible public information. In my portfolio, each assignment commences with a concise brief, a collection of named sources and a recorded trail of data, because viewers in the United Kingdom demand both correctness and openness. The subsequent sections outline how I choose stories, manage collaborations, use specialist tools, handle ethical questions and maintain records that withstand editorial scrutiny. Audiences will locate concrete details on processes, average costs and the everyday choices that determine each published work.

Archiving, Credit and Long-Term Access

Posted articles are downloaded as PDF/A files within 48 hours and stored in a local archive that is mirrored to an off-site encrypted drive https://katherineharmon.com/. Each file is named with the ISO date, outlet and slug, allowing fast location when a reader seeks a citation years later. I also deposit supplementary material such as interview transcripts or analysis scripts in the Zenodo community “Science Journalism UK”, which provides a DOI and assures availability for at least twenty years. When a story uses a dataset that cannot be shared for privacy reasons, I store a metadata record that outlines the variables and references the custodian’s access procedure.

Acknowledgment Language for Secondary Sources

Secondary sources such as systematic reviews or government statistical releases are presented with a short clause that names the producing organisation and the publication date. For example, “Office for National Statistics data released on 14 March 2024 show…” This format allows readers to assess recency without hunting through footnotes and lowers the risk of crediting a finding to an individual researcher when the work was in fact collaborative.

Navigating Open Access and Data-Sharing Guidelines

Following the publication of the UK government’s 2021 open-access framework, most publicly funded research papers are required to be available under a Creative Commons licence within twelve months. I manage a bookmark folder of institutional repositories and the Europe PubMed Central feed, which together highlight approximately 70 percent of papers cited in my stories before they appear in print. When a paper remains behind a paywall, I utilize the author’s accepted manuscript, clearly labelled as such, and link to the version of record once it is released. For clinical trial data, I verify the registry record on ISRCTN or ClinicalTrials.gov to confirm primary outcome measures before quoting efficacy percentages, because press releases sometimes highlight secondary endpoints that were not statistically powered.

Financial Implications and Time Implications

Article processing charges for open-access journals typically span from £1 500 to £4 500, figures that appear on the journal website before submission. When a paper is only available through a read-and-publish agreement negotiated by Jisc, I record the licence type in the story’s reference list so readers know they can access the full text without payment. These administrative details rarely appear in the final article, yet they influence whether a claim can be linked directly to primary evidence or must be qualified with the phrase “according to a pre-print server”.

Picking Projects That Serve a UK Readership

Project selection is based on an assessment of relevance to readers who track policy decisions made in Westminster and research programmes funded by UK Research and Innovation. I manage a rolling list of fifteen topic areas, ranging from antimicrobial resistance surveillance by the UK Health Security Agency to offshore wind deployment targets established by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Each candidate story is evaluated for timeliness, availability of primary data and potential to influence daily life, such as changes in energy bills or medicine supply. Stories that rate above an internal threshold advance to a one-page treatment summarizing the central claim, the evidence required and the expert voices needed to verify it. This scoring sheet accompanies the assignment from pitch to publication, offering editors a transparent audit trail.

Establishing and Sustaining Source Networks

Reliable reporting relies on a established network of scientists, clinicians, statisticians and press officers who react within specified time frames. I hold a contact file that documents each person’s institutional affiliation, publication record and favored channel, whether that is an institutional email or a validated Signal number. Before any interview I transmit a one-paragraph description of the angle, the planned publication and the deadline, which cuts back-and-forth and demonstrates respect for the source’s schedule. After publication I add a short note on how the interview was used, allowing future queries to be specific rather than generic. The file is examined every quarter so that retired researchers are replaced and new group leaders at institutes such as the Francis Crick Institute or the UK Atomic Energy Authority are included while their work is still in preprint.

Confirming Credentials and Avoiding Conflicts

Each new contact is verified against the institutional website and recent peer-reviewed papers found in PubMed or Web of Science. If a researcher has obtained funding from a company whose product appears in the story, that fact is noted in the same file and revealed in the article. I also note when a source has previously advised government committees, because such experience can provide context but must not be presented as independent commentary. This running ledger stops the common error of referencing the same small circle of voices and secures that readers receive a balanced range of perspectives.

Ethical Decision-Making in Routine Practice

Ethical concerns surface most commonly around patient accounts, commercial sponsorship and the use of unpublished pictures. For patient narratives I secure written consent that outlines the level of identification allowed, and I keep the form separately from the interview transcript. When a company provides early access to a device or data set, I require a written statement that no editorial control is included; the statement is filed with the project notes and summarised in the published article if the material impacts the central claim. Photographs taken at laboratories are cleared with the press department, and any image that shows an individual’s face is paired by a model-release form even if the person is a researcher rather than a patient.

Managing Corrections and Clarifications

Errors are documented in a public corrections area on my website, with the date of the original piece, the incorrect statement and the corrected wording. If the mistake modifies a numerical value by more than 5 percent or alters the direction of a outcome, I also alert the publisher’s corrections desk and request that the change be mentioned in the online version. This method has led in three published clarifications over four seasons, each resolved within ten days of the original publication date.

Core Tools for Data Handling and Fact Verification

Each dataset that comes into a story is saved into a local repository with file-naming conventions that feature the source URL, retrieval date and checksum. I employ R for initial cleaning when the file surpasses 10 000 rows, and Python’s pandas library when joins across multiple tables are necessary. A separate plain-text log documents each transformation step so that an editor or an interested reader can reproduce the figures. For statistical claims I consult the original paper’s supplementary information and, where possible, the analysis code stored in repositories such as Zenodo. When numbers appear in press releases without underlying data, I request the raw spreadsheet through the institution’s freedom-of-information route and record the reference number in the story’s endnotes.

Revision Control and Handoff to Editors

Manuscripts are composed in plain Markdown inside a private Git repository. Each commit message holds the working headline, the word-count target and the initials of any colleague who has checked a section. Branches are named by story slug and close after publication, preserving a complete record of changes demanded by editors at outlets such as New Scientist or BBC Science. This system stops accidental overwrites during late-stage edits and permits rapid retrieval of an earlier paragraph if a legal query arises months later.

FAQ

How do you determine which scientific papers deserve coverage for a UK audience?

I evaluate each paper on applicability to current UK policy, availability of primary data and possible impact on readers’ daily lives. Only papers that achieve a minimum score progress to a one-page treatment that details required evidence and expert voices. The scoring sheet stays with the assignment from pitch to publication.

Which measures do you take to confirm a new source’s credentials?

Each contact is reviewed against their institutional page and recent publications in PubMed or Web of Science. Any industry funding or advisory roles are noted in a private file and disclosed in the article if relevant. The file is assessed quarterly to keep details current.

Which tools do you use for data cleaning and version control?

Large datasets are cleaned in R or Python’s pandas library, with every transformation recorded in a plain-text log. Manuscripts are composed in Markdown inside a private Git repository so that editors can access the complete change history and earlier versions can be retrieved if needed.

How do you manage corrections after publication?

Errors are registered on a public corrections page with the original wording and the correction. If the change exceeds five percent or changes a finding’s direction, the publisher’s corrections desk is also notified. Most clarifications are settled within ten days.

What becomes to interview transcripts and datasets after a story is published?

Articles are archived as PDF/A files and saved off-site. Supplementary material such as transcripts or analysis scripts is stored in Zenodo with a DOI. Datasets that cannot be disclosed for privacy reasons get a metadata record pointing to the custodian’s access procedure.

Do you charge readers to access your published articles?

No. All articles are published in outlets that grant open access or are placed behind a publisher paywall that libraries can cover through Jisc agreements. I do not maintain a separate subscription site or position articles behind an additional paywall.