Science & Health Reporting Pack

Five templates for UK science and health journalists: expert source vetting checklist, peer-review status check, embargo agreement, medical accuracy disclaimer, and mental health story sensitivity check.

Last reviewed: 13 June 2026Next review due: 13 December 2026

Note: These templates support accurate science and health journalism. They do not constitute medical advice. Always verify health claims with qualified clinicians and authoritative sources such as NICE and NHS.uk.

What’s in this pack

Five templates for the science and health reporting workflow.

Expert Source Vetting Checklist

Credentials, conflicts of interest, independence, and accuracy record.

Peer-Review Status Check

Published journal, preprint, conference, or press-release-only — with language guidance.

Embargo Agreement

SMC-convention embargo with lift conditions and expert-contact notes.

Medical Accuracy Disclaimer

Pre-publication checklist and published disclaimer for health stories.

Mental Health Story Sensitivity Check

Samaritans media guidelines checklist with language, framing, and helpline requirements.

Template 1: Expert Source Vetting Checklist

Complete for every expert you quote in a science or health story.

EXPERT SOURCE VETTING CHECKLIST

Article: [TITLE]
Expert name: [FULL NAME]
Institution / affiliation: [INSTITUTION]
Journalist: [YOUR NAME]
Date of check: [DATE]

1. CREDENTIALS
[ ] Academic or professional qualification confirmed: [QUALIFICATION, INSTITUTION]
[ ] Current affiliation verified via institutional website or LinkedIn
[ ] Expert has direct expertise in the specific subject of this story: [ ] Yes  [ ] Adjacent — explain: [EXPLAIN]
[ ] Expert is registered/regulated where applicable:
    Medical: [ ] GMC registered (check gmc-uk.org)
    Nursing / allied health: [ ] NMC / HCPC registered
    Academic: [ ] Affiliated to UK higher education institution
    Other: [SPECIFY]

2. REPUTATION AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
[ ] Expert has published peer-reviewed research in this area: [ ] Yes  [ ] No  [ ] Unknown
Most recent relevant publication: [TITLE, JOURNAL, YEAR, URL]
[ ] Expert has no undisclosed financial conflict of interest relevant to this story
Funding of expert&apos;s research: [SOURCE — check institution website / paper disclosures]
[ ] Expert&apos;s view is in line with or informed by the scientific consensus on this topic, OR departure from consensus is clearly acknowledged in the copy

3. PREVIOUS MEDIA ACCURACY
[ ] Expert has not previously made demonstrably false or misleading claims in media
[ ] Any previous controversy or retraction: [ ] None known  [ ] Yes — detail: [DETAIL]

4. INDEPENDENCE
[ ] Expert approached for independent comment, not as a representative of an interested party
[ ] If expert represents an organisation with a position on this issue, that is disclosed in copy

5. SIGN-OFF
Expert vetting satisfactory for publication:

Journalist: _______________________ Date: ___________

Sources: Science Media Centre (sciencemediacentre.org), NICE (nice.org.uk), BMJ guidance

Template 2: Peer-Review Status Check

Check before citing any research finding. The publication status determines what language you can use in copy.

PEER-REVIEW STATUS CHECK

Article: [TITLE]
Research / study cited: [STUDY TITLE]
Journalist: [YOUR NAME]
Date of check: [DATE]

PUBLICATION STATUS
[ ] Published in peer-reviewed journal
    Journal name: [JOURNAL NAME]
    Publisher: [PUBLISHER]
    DOI / URL: [DOI OR URL]
    Publication date: [DATE]
    Impact factor (if known): [IF]

[ ] Preprint — NOT peer reviewed
    Repository: [e.g. bioRxiv / medRxiv / SSRN / OSF]
    Preprint URL: [URL]
    Posted date: [DATE]
    Note in copy: "This research has not yet been peer reviewed."

[ ] Conference abstract / presentation only
    Conference: [NAME, DATE]
    Note in copy: "These findings have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal."

[ ] Press release only — journal paper not yet available
    Embargo: [ ] Yes — embargo date: [DATE]  [ ] No
    Note: Do not cite specific findings until the full paper is available.

RETRACTION CHECK
[ ] Checked on Retraction Watch (retractionwatch.com): [ ] No retraction found  [ ] Retraction found — do not cite without full context
[ ] DOI resolves to current version of paper: [ ] Yes  [ ] Paper has been corrected — correction noted in copy

STATISTICAL CLAIMS IN THIS PAPER
[ ] Sample size: [NUMBER] — note if small
[ ] Effect size reported (not just p-value)
[ ] Confidence intervals provided
[ ] Authors disclose conflicts of interest: [ ] Yes  [ ] No  [ ] Not applicable
[ ] Funding source: [SOURCE]

Copy language approved: No language claiming certainty beyond what the evidence supports.

Journalist: _______________________ Date: ___________

Sources: Science Media Centre (sciencemediacentre.org), BMJ (bmj.com), Retraction Watch (retractionwatch.com)

Template 3: Embargo Agreement

Following Science Media Centre conventions. Complete when you accept embargoed materials from a journal or institution.

EMBARGO AGREEMENT — SCIENCE / HEALTH STORY

Journalist: [YOUR NAME], [PUBLICATION]
Contact at institution / journal: [NAME, ORGANISATION]
Date of agreement: [DATE]
Embargo details:

Embargo subject: [TITLE OF PAPER / RESEARCH / ANNOUNCEMENT]
Embargo lift time: [DATE] at [TIME] [TIMEZONE — e.g. 00:01 UK time]
Publication in: [JOURNAL NAME] / [CONFERENCE NAME] [DATE]

TERMS OF THIS EMBARGO
I confirm that I accept the embargo on the above materials on the following terms:

1. I will not publish, broadcast, or otherwise disclose any of the embargoed information before the embargo lift time.
2. I may contact independent scientific experts for comment during the embargo period. I will instruct any expert I contact that the research is under embargo.
3. The embargo is lifted automatically if: (a) another outlet publishes before the embargo time through no fault of mine; (b) the information enters the public domain by another route; or (c) the institution/journal formally lifts the embargo in writing.
4. Embargo materials may be shared within my publication solely for the purpose of editorial review before publication.

INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THIS EMBARGO
[ ] Full paper / preprint
[ ] Press release / summary
[ ] Expert briefing notes
[ ] Embargo press conference notes — date: [DATE]
[ ] Other: [SPECIFY]

SIGN-OFF
Journalist: _______________________ Date: ___________

Note: Record your independent expert sources separately. They are not bound by your embargo.

Sources: Science Media Centre embargo conventions (sciencemediacentre.org)

Template 4: Medical Accuracy Disclaimer

Internal pre-publication checklist and a published disclaimer to include at the foot of health articles.

MEDICAL ACCURACY DISCLAIMER

Article: [TITLE]
Publication: [PUBLICATION]
Date: [DATE]

INTERNAL PRE-PUBLICATION CHECKLIST

[ ] All medical claims attributed to a named, verifiable source (see Expert Source Vetting Checklist)
[ ] All statistics include base figure and date (e.g. "1 in 10 people — NHS England data, 2024")
[ ] No claim of certainty beyond what the evidence supports (e.g. "may reduce" not "cures")
[ ] No diagnostic language applied to individuals without clinical confirmation
[ ] Treatment or drug references include NICE approval status where relevant
[ ] Any off-label use of treatments clearly noted
[ ] Risk figures presented in absolute terms as well as relative terms where relevant (e.g. "doubles the risk, from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100" not just "doubles the risk")
[ ] Symptoms described are consistent with NHS / NICE guidance
[ ] Any dietary or lifestyle claims are consistent with NHS / Public Health England guidance and not exaggerated

PUBLISHED DISCLAIMER (adapt for your publication&apos;s style)
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Readers experiencing health concerns should seek advice from a qualified healthcare professional. Treatment decisions should be made in consultation with a clinician familiar with the individual&apos;s circumstances.

For UK health information: NHS.uk
For mental health support: Mind (mind.org.uk), Samaritans (116 123)

Checked by: _______________________ Date: ___________

Sources: NICE (nice.org.uk), NHS (nhs.uk), BMJ (bmj.com)

Template 5: Mental Health Story Sensitivity Check

Required for any story where suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, or mental health crisis features significantly. Based on the Samaritans media guidelines.

MENTAL HEALTH STORY SENSITIVITY CHECK

Article: [TITLE]
Journalist: [YOUR NAME]
Date of check: [DATE]
Does this story include: suicide / self-harm / eating disorders / addiction / mental health crisis? [ ] Yes — complete this checklist  [ ] No

SAMARITANS MEDIA GUIDELINES CHECK (samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines)

LANGUAGE
[ ] "Committed suicide" replaced with "died by suicide" or "took their own life"
[ ] "Failed suicide attempt" replaced with "survived a suicide attempt"
[ ] No language that glamorises or romanticises suicide or self-harm
[ ] No language that trivialises (e.g. "killed themselves over exam results")

METHOD AND LOCATION
[ ] Method of suicide or self-harm is NOT described in detail
[ ] Specific location (bridge, building, etc.) is NOT named where it could encourage imitation

CELEBRITY / PUBLIC FIGURE COVERAGE
[ ] Coverage is not disproportionate or sensationalised
[ ] Reporting does not focus on a perceived motive without evidential basis

EVIDENCE AND FRAMING
[ ] Story does not present suicide as a solution to problems
[ ] Story does not imply a single cause without nuance
[ ] Story includes the broader context and protective factors where relevant

HELPLINE INFORMATION
[ ] The following helplines are included at the foot of the story (or equivalent):
    Samaritans: 116 123 (free, 24 hours) — samaritans.org
    Crisis text line: Text SHOUT to 85258
    Mind: 0300 123 3393 — mind.org.uk
    NHS urgent mental health: 111 (option 2)

INDIVIDUALS WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE
[ ] Anyone with lived experience of mental health crisis interviewed with appropriate sensitivity
[ ] Interviewee was offered the opportunity to review the quotes attributed to them
[ ] Re-traumatisation risk considered — journalist offered debriefing if needed

EDITOR SIGN-OFF
This story has been reviewed against Samaritans media guidelines:

Editor: _______________________ Date: ___________

Sources: Samaritans Media Guidelines (samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines), NICE (nice.org.uk), IPSO Clause 5

Primary sources

Science Media Centre — expert comment, embargo conventions, guidance for science journalists
Samaritans Media Guidelines — suicide and self-harm reporting guidance for UK journalists
NICE — clinical guidelines and technology appraisals for UK health reporting
BMJ — peer-reviewed medical research and open-access reporting resources

Frequently asked questions

What is the Science Media Centre and how does it help UK science journalists?

The Science Media Centre (SMC) is an independent press office in London that provides science journalists with access to independent expert comment on breaking science and health stories. It issues rapid reaction statements from named scientists on new research findings, controversies, and policy decisions. The SMC also co-ordinates embargo briefings on major scientific papers and organises press briefings. UK journalists can sign up for SMC alerts at sciencemediacentre.org. The SMC also publishes guidance on embargo conventions and how to use scientist comment responsibly.

What does "peer reviewed" actually mean and should I always say so in copy?

Peer review means a paper has been evaluated by independent experts in the same field before publication in an academic journal. It is a quality filter, not a guarantee of correctness — peer review does not catch all errors and some retracted papers pass peer review. Preprints (papers posted before peer review, commonly on bioRxiv or medRxiv) have not been peer reviewed. In copy, always say whether research is peer-reviewed or from a preprint, and note the journal if space allows. The Samaritans and Science Media Centre both advise against overstating the certainty of research findings.

When is an embargo on scientific research legitimate?

Embargoes on scientific papers allow journalists time to read the paper, seek independent expert comment, and produce accurate coverage before publication day. The Science Media Centre's embargo conventions are widely followed in UK science journalism: embargoes are set by the journal or institution; they are usually lifted when the paper is officially published; and journalists who accept an embargo should honour it. An embargo is not legitimate if it is designed to suppress criticism, prevent independent verification, or give favoured outlets advance access for commercial purposes.

What are the Samaritans media guidelines and when do they apply?

The Samaritans Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide are voluntary guidelines for UK journalists and broadcasters. They advise against: reporting method or location in detail; presenting suicide as a solution; sensationalising or romanticising; and using the term "committed suicide" (prefer "died by suicide" or "took their own life"). The guidelines also recommend including helpline information. IPSO Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) is relevant to how survivors and families are approached. The guidelines apply to all stories where suicide or self-harm is a significant element, not only dedicated stories.

What is NICE and when should I cite it in health journalism?

NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is an independent body that produces evidence-based guidelines on clinical practice, public health, and health technology appraisal in England. NICE guidelines represent the best available clinical evidence and are widely used as the standard of care in the NHS. In health journalism, NICE guidelines are authoritative references for: what treatments the NHS recommends; drug approvals and restrictions; and clinical thresholds (e.g. BMI, blood pressure). Scotland uses Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines, which may differ from NICE.