Research press releases need better policing
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2868 (Published 28 April 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2868
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Press officers have a tough job writing press releases that please the authors of a paper, catch the eye of a journalist and yet responsibly report the science all at once. Responsibility certainly lies with both the scientists and press officers involved, including press officers at journals (the journal press release for the 7-a-day story didn’t spell out it was an association either). But a good press release can’t alone guarantee good news coverage and responsible reporting should look for the significance of a study in broader scientific context, a job the SMC helps with by providing journalists with third party expert comments: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-study-into-frui....
The idea of guidelines is a good one and will require buy-in from everyone concerned. Efforts along similar lines have been made before, such as this by Stempra: http://stempra.org.uk/stempra-guide-to-being-a-press-officer/.
The good news is there is ever more scrutiny of the route by which misinformation about research makes it into the news media, something that can occur at at any stage from study authors, through journals and press offices and onto newsdesks. Robust research on the subject should provide pointers for the best way forward.
Competing interests: No competing interests
McCartney is right that inadequate research press releases explain much bad reporting. [1] But non-transparent use of press releases, which has nothing to do with meeting deadlines, also deserves scrutiny.
Reporters don’t always attribute information from press releases or quote from them. The result is a story by a named reporter, but the reader doesn’t know how much original reporting, if any, it contains. For example, prepared statements from press releases are presented as if the person spoke to the reporter, which is misleading. Open press releases would help, but it can be difficult to track down the exact press release(s) behind a newspaper story (was it issued by a journal, meeting organiser, institution, or PR agency etc?)
Journalists “protecting their sources” shouldn’t mean hiding the role of press releases. The provenance of all information should be clear.
1. McCartney M. Research press releases need better policing. BMJ 2014;348:g2868. (28 April.)
Competing interests: No competing interests
Margaret McCartney argues that press releases from academic journals can be misleading and suggests guidelines, similar to CONSORT, would improve standards. This is a laudable aim, but with so much variation in the type and content of research articles it would be extremely complex to design, implement, and police.
In the meantime, two easily implemented changes would ensure accountability and transparency, and help improve standards. Firstly, all press releases in all academic journals should be made publicly available online, alongside the academic journal article they relate to, so that everyone can see whether the press release contained misrepresentations or exaggerations. Secondly, all academic journal press releases should give named authors, who take full responsibility for the contents, including at least one significant author from the academic paper itself.
In many cases - especially for research relevant to patients’ own choices, or policy issues - the bulk of an academic paper’s research impact comes from press coverage. This means the press release is often as important as the paper itself: they should be accessible, and treated as seriously as the academic papers themselves.
Competing interests: I receive income from writing and speaking about problems in science and science reporting.
Excellent post. It's been dawning on me for some time now that the main source of bad health reporting does not stem from journalists but from university press releases, and hence from the authors themselves, who approve the press releases.
The spin placed on dubious results is often profoundly shocking. It has more to do with PR than with truth. It's asking too much of journalists, who are working to short deadlines, to expect that they'll read the paper in detail to see through the PR guff. That isn't really their job anyway.
Here are just a few of the examples that I've encountered.
Why honey isn’t a wonder cough cure: more academic spin (2007)
Acupuncturists show that acupuncture doesn’t work, but conclude the opposite
Science is harmed by hype. How to live for 969 years
Another update. Red meat doesn’t kill you, but the spin is fascinating
Competing interests: No competing interests
If any BMJ readers need any reminder of how often this occurs, we have archived many examples over the past 8 years on our website.
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/?s=news+release&x=0&y=0&post_type=post
I strongly support Dr. McCartney's call for guidelines on research-related news releases.
The food chain feeding research results to the public is contaminated, and news releases are often one sour source.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
HealthNewsReview.org
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Research press releases need better policing
Ben Goldacre's suggestion that authors should take more responsibility for press releases relating to their publications is an excellent one. In fact, this is mentioned in the International Standards for Authors developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (and available at http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for... ). Clause 8.4 of these guidelines states that ‘Authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with publishers to coordinate media activity (e.g. press releases and press conferences) around publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that go further than the research findings.’
We encourage journals to draw authors’ attention to these guidelines by linking to them from their Instructions or adapting them for their journal.
Competing interests: I am an author of the guidelines I mention