Science journalism, in practice, covering a new study.
1. Read study.
2. Contact study authors.
3. Spend forever finding the just-right sources who can speak with authority&expertise on the study&have no association w it.
4. Contact 2x as many of these sources as you'll need.

5. Make interview appointments for 6 a.m. or midnight or whatever accommodates source time zones--globally.
6. Interview sources.
7. Get more Qs for authors, sources. Follow-up.
8. Outline, write story. Check facts bc it's a lost art in a lot of places.
9. Write. File.

10. Await edits.

Often, this is done in 24-28 hours from notice of an embargoed study.

Preprints? Same, but with skepticism dialed to highest setting, more emphasis on critiques, clear notation of preprint status.

Also? The fact that we can get quite severe critiques of *peer-reviewed studies* suggests that peer-review isn't some kind of failsafe here.

The hardest part? Sources. Those aggregated lists don't help much. We need specific expertise for the moment, the field, the findings.

So any scientists out there endorsing letters or ready to sign on to these aggregated lists of willing sources--great, but even better would be that when we contact you for comment, you just say "yes" and talk to us. Thanks.

Back to it.