Publishing an Investigation: Pre-Publication Process

Why the pre-publication process matters

Publishing an investigation is a legal and ethical act, not just an editorial one. The pre-publication process is the period between when a story is ready to file and when it goes live — and it involves a series of steps that protect the journalist, the publication and, ultimately, the public interest in the story being told accurately and fairly.

The best-executed UK investigations of recent years — including work by Tom Burgis (Kleptopia), Catherine Belton (Putin’s People) and Carole Cadwalladr (Cambridge Analytica) — were notable not only for their reporting but for the rigour of their pre-publication process. All three faced significant legal pressure after publication. In each case, the quality of the pre-publication process was central to the ultimate outcome. None of those investigations is cited here as involving invented or unverified details — they are referenced for the published, publicly documented process their authors followed.

When the pre-publication process is most demanding

• 1Allegations of criminal conduct, corruption or serious dishonesty against a named individual or institution.
• 2Stories that contradict a powerful subject's public statements, creating a strong motivation to pursue legal remedies.
• 3Investigations that have taken months or years to build and carry significant reputational consequences for the subject.
• 4Stories where the subject is known to have used litigation or the threat of litigation against journalists previously.
• 5Investigations relying on leaked or confidential documents where the subject may apply for a pre-publication injunction.
• 6Stories involving allegations that the subject has provided a detailed response to, requiring careful consideration before dismissal.
• 7Cross-border investigations involving subjects in jurisdictions with different defamation regimes.

Red flags that the pre-publication process is failing

• ⚠The lawyer's read surfaces allegations that were not in your verification plan — you have missed something.
• ⚠The subject's right-of-reply response contains a factual point you cannot explain, refute or adequately account for.
• ⚠Editorial pressure to publish before the right-of-reply deadline has expired — resist this unless there is an overwhelming and documented reason.
• ⚠The response to a legal threat before publication is to delete or modify the draft without taking legal advice first.
• ⚠A corrections policy has not been agreed before publication — know before you publish who approves corrections and how quickly.
• ⚠The editor has not seen and signed off the final version before publication — this matters for the public interest defence.
• ⚠Your insurance has not been confirmed to cover the story — particularly relevant for freelancers.

Pre-publication checklist for investigations

• Complete the verification process, including multi-source corroboration, document authentication and expert review.
• Prepare a specific, comprehensive right-of-reply letter listing each allegation you intend to publish.
• Send the right-of-reply letter with a clear deadline — at least 48 to 72 hours minimum, longer for complex multi-part stories.
• Engage a media lawyer for a pre-publication legal read — prioritise before the right-of-reply deadline where possible so the lawyer can advise on the sufficiency of the reply.
• Read the subject's response carefully and ensure every substantive factual point is addressed in the story or your editorial notes.
• Confirm that the editor has reviewed and signed off the final draft — record this in the editorial file.
• Agree the corrections policy before publication: who approves corrections, how quickly, and via what channels.
• Confirm insurance cover with your employer or, if freelancing, confirm your own cover is in place.
• Check the headline, standfirst and all social media copy against the body of the story — ensure they do not overstate.
• If you receive a legal threat before publication, preserve all correspondence and do not modify the story without legal advice.
• Be aware of SLAPP risk if your subject has a history of using litigation to deter journalism — document your response.
• Know your regulator's complaints process (IPSO or Impress) and ensure you can demonstrate compliance with the relevant code.

Common mistakes in the pre-publication process

• ›Treating right of reply as a box to tick rather than a genuine process — a perfunctory 12-hour request for a complex story is not a fair opportunity.
• ›Not reading the subject's response carefully before publication, allowing factual errors in the response to go unchallenged and unaddressed.
• ›Failing to distinguish between the editor's editorial sign-off and the legal read — these serve different functions.
• ›Confusing a legal threat letter with evidence that the story is wrong — they are not the same thing.
• ›Not having a corrections policy in place before the story goes live — corrections requested in the immediate post-publication window are common.
• ›Assuming that SLAPP protection is available before the claim is issued — current UK law provides limited pre-action protection.
• ›Failing to archive the final published version and all pre-publication drafts in a durable, retrievable format.

Related guides

Primary sources and further reading

• IPSO Editors' Code — accuracy, opportunity to reply and complaints handling
• Defamation Act 2013 — public interest defence (s.4)
• Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 — SLAPP provisions
• NUJ guidance on media insurance
• Reporters Without Borders — anti-SLAPP resources
• Index on Censorship — SLAPP tracker and resources
• BBC Editorial Guidelines — legal review process

Frequently asked questions