This is how a science paper becomes science news
Also: Journals milking open access fees, AI interest stories, and a big win for local journalism in California
Scientists publish papers. Some of those papers end up becoming science news. But what happens in-between? Why do headlines often suck? And seriously: why is it always those papers, when there's tons of better research that ends up going unnoticed?
I've been talking to a lot of developmental psychologists and cognitive scientists lately — so, people who study how babies get smart. And one of the key insights of that field is that looking at an end-result without understanding the processes behind it is a good way to be confused and wrong. Science journalism isn't nearly as cool as a toddler somehow emerging fully fluent in their mother tongue after babbling at like 5 adults, playing with blocks, and overhearing a few dozen hours of Friends while dad folds the laundry. But the same principle applies. There is simultaneously a lot less and a lot more going on behind the scenes of science journalism than the average scientist or news consumer probably knows. And you can't understand science news — what it does well, what it does poorly, and how to interact with it as a reader or source or funder — unless you understand the booger-streaked toddler of a process that produces it.
So, in this week's post, I'm going to break down how, exactly, scientific research ends up becoming a science news story. Be warned, this is going to be a bit long. That's because, when I was first getting into this field, I felt like the explanations and guides I found — while great — often left out details and context I wanted.
Science journalist readers: you can skip straight to the links + commentary on this one since it'll be stuff you already know. But I hope it'll be interesting and informative for everyone else, and maybe a helpful resource for new science journalists.
Types of science news
Science news is not just science news. There are several story formats you're likely to encounter in science magazines. Below I've linked to examples of each type that I wrote myself, so curious readers can see how much format (and outlet) shapes an article's voice and style even when stories are by the same writer:
- Single-study news: Typically 300-1000 words, focused tightly on a single recently published research paper or conference presentation. They're typically written fast, on deadlines of days or maybe a week. News features are somewhere between a news story and a feature and go into a bit more depth than usual for single-study news.
- Features: Long stories of typically 1,800 words or more. There's a lot of variation. Some go in-depth on single projects, others synthesize research directions or trends, highlight open questions or emerging fields, or profile a specific noteworthy person. They're often written in a more narrative style than a news piece and might read like a chapter in a nonfiction book. They're usually less "newsy" than single-study pieces and can take months to write.
- Explainers: Stories of intermediate length, think 800-1500 words, that aim to explain rather than break news. They might be motivated by a trendy topic or provide helpful context for a recent event.
- Q&As: Edited interviews, typically 800 words or more.
- Essays and Opinion: There's a lot of variety here. Reported essays look basically like a magazine feature except that they're written in the first-person voice. Other essays might be mostly subjective. Opinion pieces typically advance a specific argument and may or may not include reporting; often they're written by experts, not reported by journalists.
For the rest of this post I'm going to focus on the much-maligned but still rather standard single-study news piece. They're very common, and they are how most new science journalists cut their teeth.
This is not a paywall!
Subscribe for free to keep reading.
