Paper Title: Holding Science to Account: A Qualitative Study of Practices and Challenges of Watchdog Science Journalism 
Author(s) and Year: Alice Fleerackers, An Nguyen, Alfred Hermida, Ivan Oransky, 2026 
Journal: Science Communication (open access)

TL;DR: Journalists investigating scientific misconduct and fraud perform crucial oversight work, but they face a grueling and unpleasant reality. The time and resources required to properly investigate these stories often exceed the editorial staff’s willingness to publish them. Resources are even more limited for freelance journalists. As a result, important stories that impact the general population can remain unrevealed and unread because their publication is not feasible.

Why I chose this paper: Science communication loves to talk about trust and credibility. But there is a lack of discussion on the journalists doing the grinding, unglamorous work of holding science accountable. This paper acknowledges their invisible labor and helps readers understand how their work is done and how science communicators can contribute. Without journalists investigating these problems, the public is often unaware of research misconduct and fraud, which directly impacts both overall trust in science and even people’s lives.

There’s a quiet crisis in science publishing: paper mills churn out falsified research, high-profile studies get retracted after making headlines, and problematic papers accumulate citations long before anyone notices something’s wrong. 

Watchdog science journalists investigate plagiarism and fraud, determine why an article was retracted and for what reason, and find fraudulent schemes and cases of outright forgery and accidental error at institutes and universities. For example, one of the most notorious cases of scientific fraud involved a German anesthesiologist, whose fabricated and unreliable studies of cardiac surgery patients and perioperative drugs affected the credibility of dozens of clinical trials and potentially the medical decisions regarding thousands of patients.

The Background

Contrary to science journalism that simply explains study findings or shares science-related news to the public, watchdog science journalism investigates whether scientific studies are legitimate and whether researchers are acting in society’s interest.

Watchdog journalists may interview whistleblowers reporting problems, request documents from institutions and universities, verify statistical claims, and review data to determine if it has been manipulated. This work can take weeks, months, and sometimes years. It’s also expensive; often, journalists need to pay for access to the data, research assistants, and legal support.

Despite its importance, journalism that monitors scientific integrity remains understudied. In a recent review of research on scientific integrity, only 3% of articles addressed journalists’ role. Those that did, mostly only addressed it indirectly.

Fleerackers and her team wanted to understand how the process of investigative journalism in science actually works. They interviewed journalists to learn more about what stories they pursue, what gets in their way, and most importantly, what challenges watchdog science journalists face.

The Methods

The researchers conducted detailed interviews with 21 journalists who had written for outlets in Canada and the United Kingdom between 2019 and 2024. The journalists’ investigations included research integrity issues including plagiarism, data fabrication, statistical errors, and institutional misconduct. 

The interviews explored how journalists identified and pursued specific watchdog stories — from initial discovery through investigation, evidence verification, and publication decisions. Researchers asked detailed questions about the decision-making processes, obstacles encountered at each stage, and how journalists navigated legal and institutional barriers. The research protocol with interview questions is available online.

The authors employed two theoretical frameworks for data analysis: mapping the stages of watchdog news production (monitoring, selection, investigation, and reporting) and examining influences on journalism at different levels (from individual reporter experiences to institutional gatekeeping and system-wide factors). These frameworks allowed researchers to identify patterns on how journalists navigate the complex process of investigating and publishing stories about research misconduct.

The Results

Article on the Scales

The authors determined that journalists found stories through retraction notices, Retraction Watch (a curated resource of problematic and withdrawn papers), tips from colleagues, and by monitoring scientific communities online. The journalists used a standard news relevance checklist: will it matter to people, is it new, and are the organizations or researchers involved influential enough for readers to care. But personal excitement about a story, editor interest, fit with the outlet, and whether competitors had already covered the topic also mattered. Crucially, the journalists’ determination of story feasibility weighed heavily on whether to pursue it. Important stories could be abandoned if they didn’t seem feasible.

Finding a topic worth pursuing wasn’t the only challenge; additional journalistic work was required. Journalists need to talk to informants, people who worked with the researchers, experts who understand the methods, and sometimes statisticians. Documents are also essential — retraction notices, peer review reports, datasets, internal emails, government records — but most aren’t publicly available. Journalists must submit freedom of information requests, which are expensive and slow. Organizations usually don’t cooperate — restricting access to data in their interest — and press officers can act as gatekeepers — answering on behalf of institutions or not at all.

The Cost of Verification

The riskier the story, the more factual the evidence must be. If the journalist could destroy someone’s career or face a defamation lawsuit, they need airtight evidence. This is especially difficult for freelancers without institutional legal protection, as they bear personal legal risk. One journalist described it as “building a criminal case.” It requires the same rigor, but journalists are particularly vulnerable. Investigation requires time, money, fact-checkers, and legal support. Staff journalists typically have this backing, but freelancers often don’t.

The unpleasant reality is that watchdog science journalism doesn’t always attract traffic like other breaking news. A thorough investigation into research fraud might run for one day before getting buried by other reports. Journalists often abandon promising leads because they lack time, money, and other resources. Freelancers can’t risk wasting weeks with no payoff. If editorial offices with decent budgets struggle, freelancers can’t even compete.

The Impact 

The study’s findings paint a picture of journalism that is too often driven by what is feasible rather than what is important. We’ve built a media system where what gets covered depends less on whether it matters and more on its feasibility. Journalists tend to make sensible choices for their outlets, but those choices create huge blind spots. Some misconduct is identified and reported while other fraud is missed because nobody has the bandwidth, time or resources to pursue it. When journalists lack resources, scientific misconduct can go unnoticed by the public and the perpetrators remain unaccountable.

The solution to this issue requires everyone’s effort. Journalists need sustained funding independent of page views, scientists and institutions need to respond honestly to allegations instead of stonewalling, and journals need to provide better access to retraction notices and research data. Without these changes, the cycle continues: credible work coexists with fabricated research, and the public has no way of telling them apart.

Revealing the truth, especially when someone’s career is at stake, can be unpleasant and even dangerous. But in science, not doing so can have dire consequences. The story from the beginning of the article, which impacted thousands of people due to research misconduct, reminds us that we, as scientists and journalists, have a responsibility to communicate and share the truth.

—

Written by Zoё Chernova

Edited by Ceren Tunçer, Brita Kilburg-Basnyat, and Mariella Mestres-Villanueva

Featured image credit: Markus Winkler (Unsplash)