Modern science journalism is determined by the way people, projects and resources are integrated to transform complex research into reliable public knowledge katherineharmon.com. In my portfolio, every assignment starts with a detailed brief, a collection of named sources and a recorded trail of data, because audiences in the United Kingdom expect both precision and transparency. The upcoming sections explain how I pick stories, handle collaborations, employ specialist tools, manage ethical questions and keep records that stand up to editorial scrutiny. Readers will discover tangible details on processes, typical costs and the everyday choices that determine each published piece.

FAQ

How do you determine which scientific papers are worth covering for a UK audience?

I rate each paper on applicability to current UK policy, presence of primary data and potential impact on readers’ daily lives. Only papers that reach a minimum score move to a one-page treatment that lists required evidence and expert voices. The scoring sheet remains with the assignment from pitch to publication.

Which measures do you take to verify a new source’s credentials?

Each contact is verified against their institutional page and recent publications in PubMed or Web of Science. Any industry funding or advisory roles are documented in a private file and mentioned in the article if relevant. The file is examined quarterly to keep details current.

What software do you use for data cleaning and version control?

Large datasets are processed in R or Python’s pandas library, with every transformation logged in a plain-text log. Manuscripts are written in Markdown inside a private Git repository so that editors can access the complete change history and earlier versions can be restored if needed.

How do you handle corrections after publication?

Errors are logged on a public corrections page with the original wording and the correction. If the change goes beyond five percent or modifies a finding’s direction, the publisher’s corrections desk is also notified. Most clarifications are resolved within ten days.

What becomes to interview transcripts and datasets after a story is published?

Articles are stored as PDF/A files and saved off-site. Supplementary material such as transcripts or analysis scripts is placed in Zenodo with a DOI. Datasets that cannot be disclosed for privacy reasons receive a metadata record pointing to the custodian’s access procedure.

Do you require payment readers to access your published articles?

No. All articles appear in outlets that offer open access or are placed behind a publisher paywall that libraries can manage through Jisc agreements. I do not operate a separate subscription site or place articles behind an additional paywall.

Navigating Open Access and Data-Sharing Policies

Since the publication of the UK government’s 2021 open-access framework, most publicly funded research papers need to be available under a Creative Commons licence within twelve months. I maintain a bookmark folder of institutional repositories and the Europe PubMed Central feed, which together surface approximately 70 percent of papers cited in my stories before they appear in print. When a paper remains behind a paywall, I use the author’s accepted manuscript, clearly labelled as such, and link to the version of record once it is released. For clinical trial data, I review the registry record on ISRCTN or ClinicalTrials.gov to confirm primary outcome measures before quoting efficacy percentages, because press releases sometimes emphasise secondary endpoints that were not statistically powered.

Financial Implications and Time Implications

Article processing charges for open-access journals typically span from £1 500 to £4 500, figures that appear on the journal website before submission. When a paper is only available through a read-and-publish agreement negotiated by Jisc, I mention the licence type in the story’s reference list so readers know they can access the full text without payment. These administrative details rarely appear in the final article, yet they influence whether a claim can be linked directly to primary evidence or must be qualified with the phrase “according to a pre-print server”.

Ethical Decision-Making in Routine Practice

Ethical concerns arise most commonly around patient accounts, commercial sponsorship and the use of unpublished photos. For patient accounts I secure written consent that outlines the level of identification permitted, and I store the form separately from the interview transcript. When a company presents early access to a device or dataset, I require a written statement that no editorial control is included; the statement is filed with the project notes and summarised in the published article if the material impacts the central claim. Photographs captured at laboratories are cleared with the press department, and any image that depicts an individual’s face is accompanied by a model-release form even if the person is a researcher rather than a patient.

Handling Corrections and Clarifications

Errors are logged in a public corrections page on my platform, with the date of the original post, the incorrect statement and the corrected text. If the mistake changes a numerical value by more than 5 percent or changes the direction of a outcome, I also notify the publisher’s corrections desk and ask that the change be recorded in the online version. This approach has led in three published clarifications over four years, each fixed within ten days of the original publication date.

Creating and Managing Source Networks

Reliable reporting relies on a established network of scientists, clinicians, statisticians and press officers who respond within specified time frames. I hold a contact file that records each person’s institutional affiliation, publication record and preferred channel, whether that is an institutional email or a validated Signal number. Before any interview I send a one-paragraph description of the angle, the planned publication and the deadline, which cuts back-and-forth and reflects respect for the source’s schedule. After publication I include a short note on how the interview was used, allowing future queries to be exact rather than generic. The file is examined every quarter so that retired researchers are substituted and new group leaders at institutes such as the Francis Crick Institute or the UK Atomic Energy Authority are included while their work is still in preprint.

Checking Credentials and Avoiding Conflicts

Each new contact is verified against the institutional website and recent peer-reviewed papers found in PubMed or Web of Science. If a researcher has obtained funding from a company whose product shows up in the story, that fact is recorded in the same file and declared in the article. I also log when a source has previously advised government committees, because such experience can offer context but must not be framed as independent commentary. This running ledger prevents the common error of quoting the same small circle of voices and ensures that readers obtain a balanced range of perspectives.

Core Tools for Data Management and Verification

Each dataset that comes into a story is copied into a local repository with file-naming conventions that feature the source URL, retrieval date and checksum. I use R for initial cleaning when the file surpasses 10 000 rows, and Python’s pandas library when joins across multiple tables are required. A separate plain-text log records each transformation step so that an editor or an interested reader can duplicate the figures. For statistical claims I consult the original paper’s supplementary information and, where possible, the analysis code stored in repositories such as Zenodo. When numbers appear in press releases without underlying data, I seek the raw spreadsheet through the institution’s freedom-of-information route and mention the reference number in the story’s endnotes.

Change Management and Handoff to Editors

Manuscripts are written in plain Markdown inside a private Git repository. Each commit message includes the working headline, the word-count target and the initials of any colleague who has reviewed a section. Branches are titled by story slug and are closed after publication, maintaining a complete record of changes requested by editors at outlets such as New Scientist or BBC Science. This system avoids accidental overwrites during late-stage edits and enables rapid retrieval of an earlier paragraph if a legal query comes up months later.

Selecting Projects That Serve a UK Readership

Project selection starts with an assessment of relevance to readers who monitor policy decisions issued by Westminster and research programmes funded by UK Research and Innovation. I maintain a rolling list of fifteen topic areas, spanning from antimicrobial resistance surveillance by the UK Health Security Agency to offshore wind deployment targets set by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Each candidate story is scored for timeliness, availability of primary data and potential to influence daily life, such as changes in energy bills or medicine supply. Stories that score above an internal threshold progress to a one-page treatment outlining the central claim, the evidence required and the expert voices needed to validate it. This scoring sheet follows the assignment from pitch to publication, offering editors a transparent audit trail.

Archiving, Attribution and Extended Access

Published articles are saved as PDF/A files within 48 hours and stored in a local archive that is backed up to an off-site encrypted drive. Each file is titled with the ISO date, outlet and slug, allowing rapid location when a reader asks for a citation years later. I also deposit supplementary material such as interview transcripts or analysis scripts in the Zenodo community “Science Journalism UK”, which provides a DOI and guarantees availability for at least twenty years. When a story depends on a dataset that cannot be shared for privacy reasons, I deposit a metadata record that details the variables and references the custodian’s access procedure.

Credit Language for Secondary Sources

Secondary sources such as systematic reviews or government statistical releases are framed with a short clause that names the producing organisation and the publication date. For example, “Office for National Statistics data released on 14 March 2024 show…” This format allows readers to judge recency without looking through footnotes and reduces the risk of assigning a finding to an individual researcher when the work was in fact collaborative.