• Are sources referenced? Does the media coverage link to peer-reviewed studies? Research should be properly referenced with citations to credible journals or institutions.
• Beware of overgeneralisations: Phrases like "scientists prove" or "this breakthrough will cure" often signal sensationalism. Science works incrementally, and results are rarely definitive.
• Understanding study limitations: A single study, especially one with a small sample size or novel findings, is often just the first step in understanding a scientific question. Has the research been replicated by other independent studies? Replication strengthens confidence in the findings. Exciting new discoveries often need further investigation to confirm their validity and relevance. Be cautious of bold claims based on preliminary or unreplicated research.

Example: A claim that "chocolate improves memory" might stem from a small, limited study and not be widely supported by larger, more rigorous research.

• Look for publication dates: Check when the content was published or last updated. Media stories from years ago might no longer reflect the current understanding of a topic.
• Consider the topic's nature: For emerging fields like AI or medical breakthroughs, newer information is critical. For foundational topics, older explanations may still be relevant.
• Watch for outdated references: Stories linking to older studies without context may omit newer findings that refine or contradict earlier research.

Example: A news story from 2010 claiming "breakthrough cancer treatments" may be irrelevant today if more effective treatments have been developed since then.

• Fact vs. opinion: Articles written to inform are more likely to provide balanced viewpoints, while those aiming to persuade or entertain may push a specific agenda.
• Sales or persuasion motives: Be cautious if the content is tied to a product or service—it may prioritize sales over accuracy.
• Tone and balance: Trust media content that avoids emotional language or sensationalism, focusing instead on presenting nuanced, evidence-based information.

Example: A balanced article on dietary supplements will discuss both benefits and risks, rather than just praising the product.

• Reputable publishers: Media outlets with dedicated science desks or partnerships with reputable institutions are more likely to provide accurate reporting.
• Avoid agenda-driven sources: Outlets promoting products, political viewpoints, or sensationalism may not prioritize accuracy. Beware of clickbait.
• Transparency in funding: Look for disclosures about who funds the platform and why the article was written. This can reveal potential biases.

Example: A blog post sponsored by an energy company downplaying the environmental impact of fossil fuels may have a vested interest in shaping public opinion. Compare this with a report from an independent environmental organization or a university study that examines the issue using peer-reviewed research and a balanced perspective.

• Check credentials: Is the journalist or author specialized in science reporting, or are they generalists? Science-specific credentials or a history of accurate reporting add credibility.
• Look for affiliations: Authors linked to universities, research organizations, or well-known science publications are more likely to provide accurate information.
• Biases: Authors affiliated with advocacy groups or industries may present one-sided narratives.

Example: An article discussing COVID-19 written by a specialized science journalist including quotes and insights from doctors, virologists, or peer-reviewed studies carries more weight when than one based on anecdotal evidence from a general lifestyle influencer.

• Seek corroboration: Look for the same claims reported by multiple reputable sources. If they align, the content is more likely to be accurate.
• Avoid echo chambers: Diversify your reading by consulting sources with different perspectives to avoid reinforcing biases.
• Identify patterns: Pay attention to whether different sources interpret the same data in similar ways. Variations in interpretation can highlight areas of uncertainty or bias, while consistent conclusions across credible sources strengthen confidence in the information.

Example: A claim about risks from artificial sweeteners may be exaggerated in a single article but tempered when cross-checked with multiple credible sources.

• Submit Content for Expert Review: If you come across a news story, blog post, or social media claim about science and want to verify its accuracy, you can request a review through AuthentiSci. Scientists will evaluate the content, focusing on evidence, clarity, and balance.
• Understand Expert Feedback: Reviews don’t just provide a score; they also include detailed commentary explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the reporting and help you develop a better understanding of the topic.
• Learn from Trusted Sources: Through AuthentiSci, you gain access to expert insights that make it easier to distinguish credible information from sensationalism or misinformation.

By incorporating expert analysis into your media evaluation process, you can take an active role in fostering informed decision-making and reducing the spread of misinformation.