EXPLORE:
About Us
Reporting from the frontiers of health and medicine

Fact-Checking Policy

The verification framework GenoMethods uses for scientific, clinical, regulatory, company and transaction reporting.

Updated

GenoMethods uses source-based verification to improve the accuracy and context of biotechnology reporting. The level of review depends on the complexity, significance and potential impact of the claim.

Fact-checking is intended to determine whether the available evidence supports the wording used in an article. It is not a promise that uncertainty can always be removed; where uncertainty remains material, the article should make that limitation visible.

Verification Workflow

  1. Identify what needs verification. Material names, dates, numbers, scientific claims, trial details, regulatory status, quotations, technical specifications and transaction terms are identified during research and editing. Priority is given to details that could materially change the reader's interpretation if they were wrong.
  2. Select appropriate sources. Primary or authoritative material is preferred where reasonably available. The source appropriate for a clinical result may differ from the source appropriate for a company financing, regulatory action or technical specification.
  3. Check the primary record. Depending on the topic, this may include scientific papers, trial registries, regulatory records, company filings, technical documentation or official disclosures. Company promotional material may be useful for attribution but is not automatically treated as independent verification.
  4. Verify names, dates, numbers and quotations. Small factual errors can materially change the meaning of scientific, clinical or financial reporting. These details are checked where relevant against the underlying source rather than inferred from secondary summaries when the primary record is reasonably available.
  5. Review higher-risk claims. Health, safety, regulatory, legal, reputational and investment-sensitive claims receive additional scrutiny because unsupported certainty in these areas can cause greater reader confusion or harm.
  6. Perform editorial review. The editor evaluates whether the sources support the wording, whether limitations have been represented appropriately and whether the article distinguishes evidence from interpretation.
  7. Continue verification after publication. Reliable new information may lead to an update, clarification or correction when it materially affects previously published information.

Source Hierarchy

Peer-reviewed research and supporting scientific materialScientific methods, findings, limitations, study design and evidence quality.
Clinical trial registriesTrial design, status, enrollment, endpoints and other registered study details.
Regulatory documentsSubmissions, designations, authorizations, approvals, restrictions and safety actions.
Company filings and official disclosuresFinancial figures, transactions, ownership and formal corporate information.
Technical documentation and public datasetsSpecifications, performance, workflow, methodology and underlying data where available.
Company press releasesEvidence of what a company has publicly claimed, not automatic independent validation of that claim.
Reputable secondary reportingContext, prior events, chronology and supporting background.

Scientific and Clinical Checks

Scientific and clinical claims are interpreted in context rather than reduced to a headline result. The same numerical outcome can mean different things depending on study design, patient population, follow-up, controls and the maturity of the evidence.

  • Study design, controls and sample size may materially affect interpretation.
  • Preprints should be distinguished from peer-reviewed work where that status is relevant.
  • Preclinical findings should not be presented as demonstrated human benefit.
  • Early response signals should not be described as durable efficacy without supporting evidence.
  • Trial phase, population, endpoints, adverse events and follow-up may be checked where relevant to the claim.
  • Material limitations should not be omitted when they affect the conclusion a reasonable reader could draw.

Higher-Risk Claims

Clinical safety or efficacyCheck trial data, patient population, endpoints, follow-up and regulatory context before using definitive language.
Licensing and transaction valuesSeparate upfront payments, milestones, royalties, equity and contingent value rather than presenting a headline maximum as cash already received.
Regulatory or legal statusUse precise terminology and verify the relevant official record where reasonably available.
Financial claimsPrefer filings or formal disclosures where available and distinguish disclosed facts from interpretation.
Fraud, misconduct or serious allegationsRequire strong sourcing, careful attribution and appropriate opportunity for response when relevant.
Reputational claimsAvoid unsupported anonymous allegations, insinuation or speculative framing presented as established fact.

Regulatory Precision

Regulatory terminology can materially change the meaning of a story. GenoMethods therefore aims to distinguish between:

  • submission;
  • acceptance for review;
  • special regulatory designation;
  • authorization;
  • approval;
  • conditional or restricted approval where relevant.

A development that may accelerate or support a regulatory pathway should not be described as final approval unless that is what the official record establishes.

Unnamed Sources

GenoMethods rarely uses unnamed sources. Sensitive anonymous claims should be corroborated where reasonably possible through documents, official records or additional independent sources.

An unnamed source does not lower the evidence threshold for a serious allegation or allow speculation to be presented as fact.

Post-Publication Verification

New scientific evidence, regulatory decisions or corrected source information may materially change an article after publication. When that happens, GenoMethods may update, clarify or correct the relevant information according to the nature of the change.

Verified factual errors are handled under: Corrections Policy

Potential errors may be reported to: corrections@genomethods.org

Related Pages

GenoMethods
1 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142
United States