Readers must demonstrate to news sources that this issue is important to us. News sources must allot proper time, space, and training for journalists to perform proper science reporting. Reporters and writers must also be ready and receptive to reader feedback. One site, Health News Review
evaluates health news coverage and assigns a grade for accuracy. Reporters are then notified of their performance.
How else can reporters improve? Some suggest that instead of focusing (and exaggerating) the findings of a single scientific study, reporters should emphasize instead the methodology and context of the study. This is not limited to journalists only, scientists and organizations pushing press releases should be mindful of this too. Information put out by reputable sources influence those that need the information most.
Another suggestion is to make scientific papers open-access. Readers are unlikely to purchase a scientific paper to verify a journalist's claims, thus creating an imbalance. Removing the asymmetric information problem puts pressure on journalists to thoroughly examine the paper and scientific context for fear of negative feedback. In a Vox article
, Crystal Steltenpohl, a graduate assistant at DePaul University says "being able to explain your work to a non-scientific audience is just as important as publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, in my opinion, but currently the incentive structure has no place for engaging the public."
Join Authorea as a champion of #OpenScience. Write and annotate your work collaboratively and transparently.