SCIENCE COMMUNICATION CHECKLIST (Press Releases, Op-Eds, and Blogs)

Suggested citation: Roy, S., Edwards, M.A. 2017. Communicating on USWaterStudy.org - A checklist.

This checklist was originally conceived with Dr. Marc Edwards in November 2017 while our team was responding to the Flint Federal Emergency and conducting water quality investigations in other US cities.

Reputation check: By publishing on a public platform, you are representing your university, research group, and PI.

Your primary goal: To communicate scientific knowledge in a reasonable, understandable, and compassionate manner to benefit whoever is reading. You should also strive to make some parts of your writing quotable so that your main conclusions are clear, jargon-free, and easy to repeat/quote by others, especially journalists and members of the public.

Your motto: I cannot afford to make a mistake!

Public Health Messaging:

  • Am I giving out any advice to the public? If so,
    • Have I discussed this with everyone on the core team to ensure it is the right advice (or even a range of advice)?
    • Does the majority of the core team agree on the final advice list?
    • Have other agencies released similar messages before (either specific to your project, like flushing filters advice by EPA/manufacturers in Flint, or, more generally, like water quality messaging in past flooding events)? If so, have I quoted them?
    • Is there nuance to the advice? If those nuances are significantly important, have I made those clear without diluting my main message?
Scientific context:
  • Have I compared my data against established standards (EPA/WHO/CDC) and other cities/scenarios for context?

Quality of evidence:

Data:
  • Is my data preliminary/definitive/final? Have I made this clear in my write-up?
  • Are there alternative ways to explain my findings? If so, have I made a compelling scientific case for why my explanation is the most accurate?
  • If I share my data with other competent scientists/journalists, will they come to a similar conclusion as I did?
  • Have I adequately addressed scientific uncertainty on these findings without confounding my main message?
  • Have I framed writing about the data in a way that will benefit/clarify/advance the public’s understanding?
Data presentation:
  • Can I use tables, graphics (graphs/pictures/photos) and analogies to better explain my results? If so, have I used them?
  • Have I included regulatory (or other) standards in the data visualizations to contextualize my findings?
  • Are these easy for a layperson (8th-grade reading level, good at their job, relatively smart) to read and understand?

Length and Quality of Write-up:

  • Does my write-up tell a story? Or is it a random smorgasbord of sentences and statistics?
  • Have I sufficiently used tables/graphs/schematics/figures/photos to both decrease the length of my article and illustrate my point better?
  • Can journalists directly find and quote my conclusions?

Credits:

  • Have I credited all relevant parties, esp. citizen/activist partners, university collaborators, and student/undergraduate helpers in sampling/experiment/analysis adequately?

Doubts:

  • Do I still have reservations about this press release? If so, send your PI an email before pressing ‘Publish.’

PI Approval:

  • Have I incorporated my PI’s comments on my final draft and received approval from my PI (unless you are exempt)?

Post-publication:

  • Did any media outlet misinterpret, exaggerate, or mischaracterize my words (spoken or written)? If so,
    • I have sent the responsible journalist an email.
    • I issued a clarification on my page and shared it on social media. (Hint: FAQ clarifications are usually the most effective).

GUIDANCE AND CHECKLIST FOR PREPRINTS.

Citation: Roy, S., Edwards, M.A. 2021. When are preprint releases justified during public health emergencies and when are they counterproductive? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113896

Peer-reviewed commentary featuring two case studies (Flint, MI and COVID-19), four principles, and an eight questions checklist:

Credit: Roy and Edwards, IJHEH, 2021

Read the (unfortunately paywalled) article here. Or, send me an email to request a copy.