Technical Editing 101
A guide for technical editors, editors, and writers to ensure accurate, responsible publication.
Last updated
Was this helpful?
A guide for technical editors, editors, and writers to ensure accurate, responsible publication.
Last updated
Was this helpful?
The writer or content producer— i.e. video, photo, or illustration— is responsible for the accuracy of work produced for Science for the People. The goal of the technical editors is to strengthen the quality of our work and ensure that we are a reliable, informative resource.
See more here and a general production timeline here.
TEs get a copy of the article as soon as it has been cleared by the editor at large. The lead editor should contact the TE when the article is nearing completion to let them know when to expect the article. At this point the article should be in its final draft, and the author should have included all citations. If you receive an article without citations or you are having trouble finding sources, reach out to the lead editor immediately. They are responsible for liasing with the author to get this information back to you.
Once you receive the article, turnaround time is one week, although sooner is always better!
Make your comments as suggestions in the Google Doc. Highlight any factual claims and comment 'Correct' or 'Verified' with the source corroborating it or, if not correct, include a link that counters the claim in the article and, when applicable, suggest a rewrite. You may also suggest citations and sources for the author.
Writers should always review their work for factual accuracy. The process for fact checking is then as follows:
The writer sends their piece to the editor with citations, including relevant URLs and documents. If an article cited requires a paywall, the author should do their best to send a pdf version of that article to the editor. If the writer is quoting from a firsthand interview, they should be prepared to send clips of that interview and any other relevant documentation.
After a piece has been reviewed by the lead and co-editor, it is sent to the technical editor.
The technical editor has one week to review the piece, unless otherwise specified. The technical editor then sends the piece back to the lead and co-editor, with recommended changes for certain sections.
Per the editors directive, writer, editors, and technical editor may schedule a conversation to ensure alignment on key points.
Editor notifies technical editor that the text is ready for a final read when necessary (i.e., a number of claims in the article still need to be verified after the first pass). Technical editor reads over the article for verification.
In some cases, a piece should undergo a second round of fact-checking. This decision should be made by the editorial collective in coordination with the Technical Editing Committee. These include, but are not limited to: potentially sensitive, high profile, or controversial articles; investigative reporting; articles involving classified materials or facts; and highly technical scientific reporting.
The writer/content producer should generally provide: • an annotated copy of their submission, citing sources for all facts • URLs of websites used • interview transcripts, notes, and/or audio recordings from key interviews • copies of key documents that informed the work • a list of phone numbers and email addresses of sources, if primary sources are quoted or used.
** It is the writer’s responsibility to provide the evidence and documentation that supports their reporting. If they have not, the fact checker will return the article to the lead and co-editor with recommendations for . **
Some items considered high priority for review are:
statements that disparage a person or organization
technical, financial, or scientific information, especially if not previously reported
summaries of scholarly studies
descriptions of legal arguments (generally documents from both sides of a case should be reviewed)
statistics, casualty figures, and other numerical data
dates and chronology of events
statistical or other analysis performed by the writer
descriptions or summaries of official policies or laws
descriptions of someone else’s writing
formal name spellings
descriptions of well-known historical events
sweeping statements and superlatives: “one of the highest rates of…”
biographical information received via interviews (where possible)
Notes on sourcing:
Generally, writers should reach out to the people and organizations they write about to offer an opportunity for comment, especially when their work is critical of them. They should carefully consider whether peripheral subjects also deserve to be contacted.
Writers and technical editors should think critically about the biases and agenda of each source, the source’s credibility, and authority to know what he or she claims to know.
For unnamed sources, see separate anonymous source guidelines.
Notes on checking quotes:
Writers are responsible for the accuracy of their own quotes. Facts within quotes and source names should be confirmed by the writer and, when applicable, the fact-checker.
In some cases fact-checkers will review interview notes or contact interviewees. This may occur if an individual’s quote might be damaging to themselves or others, if they have expertise in the subject of the reporting, or if the person is the sole source of important details in the piece.
Quotes pulled from someone else’s writing should be attributed to the appropriate outlet. Likewise, quotes from a press release should be attributed to the press release.
Writers should avoid pulling quote fragments from throughout an interview to piece together a more coherent idea. Ellipses or paraphrasing outside of quotes should be used as an alternative where appropriate.
If the fact checker notices that a writer has edited quotes from an interview in a way that goes beyond matters of style and potentially affects the meaning, they should raise this with the writer and editor. Non-original quotes taken from any other source should never be changed even for clarity or style.
Notes on checking Q & As:
Check formal names.
Check assertions that are based on publicly available facts.
Fact checker should consider listening to the audio from the interview or obtaining a complete transcript (if sensitive).
* For sensitive stories, fact checker, editor, and writer should agree upon the most secure approach necessary to share and discuss sources. *
1. Can I say with confidence that this statement is true?
2. Can I present evidence that would compel a skeptic to share my confidence?
3. Can I conceive of a realistic scenario in which I'm presented with counter-evidence that would compel my publication to run a correction?
If a fact is correct, insert a comment over the portion you have checked (i.e. if you have checked the name of a person as well as a date with the same source, highlight both of those pieces of the statement), and in the comment, write, “Correct” with a link to the source(s) you found to validate the claim.
If a fact is incorrect, insert a comment in the same manner as above that says “Incorrect,” linking to the sources that disproved or complicated the claim. If possible, provide a corrected version of the sentence, or a recommendation (i.e. provide more nuance to said claim, verify a statistic associated with said claim, remove statement altogether, etc.).
If unable to verify a fact, insert a comment that says, “Can’t verify.” When writers receive feedback on the piece, they will be asked to either provide evidence for unverifiable facts or make edits to their claims.
