Skip to main content

It’s triple-check for science reporting (hindu)

Medical stories should be complete and carefully verified

Since the office of the Readers’ Editor was established in The Hindu in 2006, one reader has been relentless in his pursuit for accuracy. He has an excellent eye for detail and a phenomenal memory of sporting events. Dr. Maniyur Raghavendran is a consultant urologist and transplant surgeon. While most of his letters are about slip ups in sports stories, his recent mail questioned the credibility of a journal cited in a medical story.

The report, “Woman takes risk, achieves motherhood after 20 miscarriages” (April 15, 2017), was filed by the Nellore staff reporter. It was a moving story about a woman who wanted to have a child despite difficult medical conditions, and who was ready to take a risk because her husband’s family was pressuring him to marry again. The report was based on interviews with the woman and her doctor. It was a good human-interest story, but was marred by the strapline which read: “In view of the rare nature, her medical report entered the International Journal of Reproduction, says expert.”

Dr. Raghavendran wrote: “I tried searching for this journal, but this seems to be an open access journal where you pay and get your report published. Does The Hindu need to highlight such cases entered in fictitious journals?”

Guidelines for science reporting
I agree with Dr. Raghavendran. It is important for staff reporters and regional desks to read the 2012 internal circular that spelt out the rules for reporting on science and health. The operative part of that circular is this: “Medical stories should be complete and carefully verified; cutting corners for whatever reason, including competitive pressures, is impermissible. Please run such stories by the Science Editor or senior health writers before pitching them to the editorial desk. Do not mail these stories to the Net. If you are not a designated health reporter in a bureau, all stories on press releases on medical claims must be routed through one of our senior editorial experts and not filed directly by general reporters. If such a process takes time, so be it: a story could be held over to check the claims made.”

In my column, “Tall claim is not science” (January 18, 2016), I shared some of the best practices in science and health reporting. The article dealt with the quality of academic journals, and what a reporter can rely upon. Those guidelines are: “Check the quality of peer review, as different journals have different criteria and practices, and the quality of their peer review varies accordingly. Try to find out the limitations of the study: was it too preliminary or too small a sample size to be accepted in a higher quality journal? Be critical if the claim is made in a public statement. How credible is the scientist among his/her scientific peers? Is the scientist based at a recognised scientific institution? How is the study funded? Finding an independent expert to comment is the most reliable way to judge the validity of a study.”

Predatory journals in India
R. Prasad, Science Editor of The Hindu, in “Predatory journals make desperate bid for authenticity” (April 20, 2017), explained how India has a huge and growing number of predatory journal publishers. He looked at data from the India office of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) since March 2014, when the new criteria for DOAJ listings were put out. Mr. Prasad wrote that out of 1,600 applications from open access journal publishers in India, only 4% were found to be from genuine publishers and accepted for inclusion in the DOAJ directory. While 18% of the applications are still being processed, Mr. Prasad contends that the main reason for the rejection of 78% of the applications is the predatory or dubious nature of the journals.

There are some fine journalistic clues in Mr. Prasad’s article. For instance, he cites Bengaluru-based Leena Shah, DOAJ ambassador, India, who gives two important entry points to assess the journal: “Nearly 20% of the journals have a flashy impact factor and quick publication time, which are quick give-aways… Under contact address, some journal websites do not provide any address but just a provision for comments.”

While reporting human-interest stories that have a substantial scientific component to it, general reporters should imbibe the rules and norms of science reporting. While double-check is the norm for general reporting, it is triple-check for science reporting.

Popular posts from this blog

Cloud seeding

Demonstrating the function of the flare rack that carries silver iodide for cloud-seeding through an aircraft. 
Water is essential for life on the earth. Precipitation from the skies is the only source for it. India and the rest of Asia are dependent on the monsoons for rains. While the South West Monsoon is the main source for India as a whole, Tamil Nadu and coastal areas of South Andhra Pradesh get the benefit of the North East Monsoon, which is just a less dependable beat on the reversal of the South West Monsoon winds.

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”.

The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya.

It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests.

The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach it in …

India’s criminal wastage: over 10 million works under MGNREGA incomplete or abandoned (hindu)

In the last three and half years, the rate of work completion under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has drastically declined, leading to wastage of public money and leaving villages more prone to drought. This could also be a reason for people moving out of the programme.

At a time when more than one-third of India’s districts are reeling under a drought-like situation due to deficit rainfall, here comes another bad news. The works started under the MGNREGA—close to 80 per cent related to water conservation, irrigation and land development—are increasingly not being completed or in practice, abandoned.

Going by the data (as on October 12) in the Ministry of Rural Development’s website, which tracks progress of MGNREGA through a comprehensive MIS, 10.4 million works have not been completed since April 2014. In the last three and half years, 39.7 million works were started under the programme. Going by the stipulation under the programme, close to 7…