Science Feedback is both the name of our fact-checking publication and the not-for-profit, non-partisan organization hosting it.

The publication is dedicated to verifying the credibility of influential claims and media coverage that claims to be scientific, starting with the topics of climate and health. Science Feedback is based in France, but has a team of fact-checkers located in Brazil, Spain, the U.K., and various other locations around the world.

Our About and Legal Notice pages make this transparent to the readers: 

https://science.feedback.org/about/ , 

https://science.feedback.org/legal-notice/ 

The institution's legal standing and stated mission fully align with the established criteria.

1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?

Science Feedback originated with the Climate Feedback project, which started as an academic project in 2015 to help the scientific community contribute to verify the credibility of influential claims and media coverage related to climate change. The Health Feedback project was started in 2018 to expand Science Feedback’s activity to the fields of health, medicine and nutrition, for which a large amount of viral misinformation exists.

Our mission is to help the public to more easily find scientifically sound and trustworthy information. Our publication aims to inform the public directly, via our website and social media channels, as well as via partnerships with web platforms in which we help warn users about misinformation and decrease recommendation algorithms’ exposure of users to misinformation.

Our mission is pedagogical; we strive to explain whether and why information is or is not consistent with science. We are non-partisan and apply the same methodology to claims made in a variety of media outlets. We analyze claims that either contradict or exaggerate the science. We believe it is scientists’ civic duty to better inform citizens in their areas of expertise.

2. How many people work or volunteer in the organization and what are their roles?

The Science Feedback team currently consists of 14 people. The Founder and Executive Director is Emmanuel Vincent. There are 8 Science Editors/Fact-checkers who cover health, climate, biology, and ecology. Science Feedback also employs an administrative and tech team composed of an Operations Manager, a Data & Policy officer and 3 developers/data scientists. In addition to the team, there are 7 board of trustees members and advisors as well as several hundred scientists who contribute to our reviews on a volunteer basis.

For more details on our staff, advisors, and scientist reviewers see:

https://science.feedback.org/team/

https://science.feedback.org/member-category/community/

3. What different activities does your organization carry out?

Our main activity consists in verifying the credibility of influential information that claims to be scientific in fields that are particularly prone to misinformation, mostly climate change and health.

We currently publish the following formats on our website:

- fact-check articles (we call ‘Reviews’) that investigate whether one or several claim(s) is consistent with science;

- explainer articles (‘Insights’) that explore topics for which the state of science isn’t settled, address talking points (narratives) that can mislead their audience but aren’t necessarily false, or explain a misleading talking point or manipulating tactic used by misinformers;

- ‘Analysis & Investigations’ articles that analyze data to unmask authors behind disinformation campaigns, or to quantify the scale of misinformation on social media, for instance.

Reviews of claims are focused on checking the veracity of individual statements, which are extracted from prominent articles, statements by politicians, or influencers on social media. Reviews of entire articles or videos invite scientists to fact-check a number of claims at once and provide in-depth analysis on a whole article. Beyond verifying individual facts, it is often necessary in science to analyze a whole article for quality of logic and scientific reasoning, i.e., how evidence is used to support a conclusion.

In both reviews of claims and reviews of entire articles, we seek comments from scientists with relevant expertise to assess the scientific credibility of content. This process aims to add contextual information and highlight factual inaccuracies and faulty reasoning where they exist. To complete the analysis, scientists evaluate articles and provide a credibility score based on accuracy, logic, objectivity, and factual precision—giving readers an overall guide to the scientific credibility of the article, and are invited to suggest a verdict for the assessment of the credibility of claims. Science Feedback editors then provide a summary of the key takeaways from scientists’ comments, as well as the result of their own review of the scientific literature.

For more information about our process and our guidelines to evaluate the scientific credibility of claims and articles, see https://science.feedback.org/process/.

In addition to these editorial activities, Science Feedback also prototyped a web platform to archive fact-checking data attached to the sources that published the claims. The data is intended to be shared with scientists studying misinformation or with regulators interested in assessing the effectiveness of web platforms’ policies against misinformation, for instance. See https://open.feedback.org/. We are also collaborating with the European fact-checking community to develop a collaborative repository of fact-checked content.

Science Feedback is a signatory of the 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation that has been instilled by the European Commission and an active member of its task-force. We meet with other task-force members on a weekly basis and work to encourage relevant actions from very large online platforms and search engines to promote reliable information.

In 2021, Science Feedback contributed to the creation of pedagogical resources for French teachers in collaboration with other NGOs (see https://www.respect-emi.fr/dejouer-les-fausses-informations/ ).

Science Feedback, via its subsidiary SciVerify, is a partner in Meta and TikTok third party fact-checking programs, in which we help them identify misinformation in the most viral posts on their platforms.

4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

Our main goal over the coming year is to sustain our team of science editors in the fields of climate change and health.

We also aim to expand our fact-checking activities in French and to reinforce our capacity to verify claims made about the energy transition (renewable energy, electric vehicles…).

We also aim to enhance our communication capabilities and expand the dissemination of our content, furthering our mission to inform the public at scale. We plan on developing a strategy for communication and dissemination to engage the public on a larger scale as well as key audiences such as journalists, influencers and policy-makers.

A review of the provided statement clearly outlines the initiation of the organization's operations, including the rationale and timeframe. No discrepancies were identified in this regard. 

The information regarding the organization's professional staff and volunteers is sufficiently detailed. 

The various activities mentioned in the reference materials do not appear to contravene any of the established IFCN criteria. The activities appear to be legitimate. The outlined objectives for the coming year appear to be well-founded.

Archives of all our reviews can be found here: https://science.feedback.org/reviews/  

Average number of analyses published per week is satisfactory.

In my analysis, I observed that the topic selection was made by taking into consideration the criteria that fall under the IFCN mandate, such as social benefit and similar issues.

N/A

I have not come across any activities that violate the conditions of this criterion in my research from secondary and tertiary sources.

N/A

Not available.

In order to maintain coherence in the credibility ratings issued by scientists, we provide a clear guide defining the meaning of each “overall credibility rating” level and ask reviewers to evaluate articles based on 6 criteria (Factual Accuracy, Scientific understanding, Logic/Reasoning, Precision/Clarity, Sources Quality, Fairness/Objectivity). Read our guidelines here: https://science.feedback.org/process/#tit4 .

Our editors are asked to respect our editorial standards, the first rule of which is that they need to “evaluate claims in an accurate and impartial manner, free of bias or external influence” https://science.feedback.org/editorial-standards/ .

Scientists contributing as volunteers to our analyses are asked to conform to high-quality community standards upon signing up, which require them to comment only on claims related to their expertise. Read our community standards: https://science.feedback.org/community-standards/

As stated on our Process page, we strive for our reviews to be representative of the spectrum of influential science related discussion in the media. We review articles and claims in a variety of media, without a priori perspective, regardless of whether they insightfully report on or exaggerate scientific findings.

As seen in the list below, most of the claim authors we check are not politicians, but individuals making statements on scientific topics for which they have little or no expertise.

The selection of reviews below show that we review claims from individuals and groups from across the political spectrum, from the “right” to the “left” based on services such as Media Bias/Fact Check or Ad Fontes Media.

• Published studies misrepresented by cardiologist Peter McCullough to push false claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause sudden cardiac death https://science.feedback.org/review/published-studies-misrepresented-peter-mccullough-false-claim-covid-vaccines-sudden-cardiac-death/  (Source: One America News Network)
• Study didn’t show COVID-19 vaccines weaken children’s immune response, contrary to claim by Alex Berenson https://science.feedback.org/review/study-didnt-show-covid19-vaccines-weaken-children-immune-response-contrary-claim-alex-berenson/ (Source: The Florida Standard)
• Contrary to widespread misrepresentation, new study finds “extremely minimal” impact of human breathing on climate https://science.feedback.org/review/contrary-widespread-misrepresentation-new-study-finds-extremely-minimal-impact-human-breathing-climate/ (Source: The Daily Mail)
• No clinical evidence supports the use of baking soda as a cancer treatment https://science.feedback.org/review/no-clinical-evidence-supports-the-use-of-baking-soda-as-a-cancer-treatment/ (Source: Anya Vien)
• Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is not a major driver of global warming https://science.feedback.org/review/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-not-major-driver-global-warming/ (Source: Social media users)
• Social media post inaccurately claims natural remedy of garlic, onions, thyme, and lemon can replace the flu shot https://science.feedback.org/review/social-media-post-inaccurately-claims-natural-remedy-garlic-onions-thyme-lemon-replace-flu-shot/ (Source: Healthy Holistic Living)
• Incorrect claim that COVID-19 vaccines caused a 143,233% surge in cancer results from flawed calculations that misuse adverse event reporting data https://science.feedback.org/review/incorrect-claim-covid19-vaccines-caused-surge-cancer-results-flawed-calculations-misuse-adverse-event-reporting-data-vaers/ (Source: The Daily Exposé)
• Study calls for people to grow their own food for many years to come, despite finding higher carbon footprint compared to conventional agriculture https://science.feedback.org/review/study-calls-people-grow-their-own-food-years-come-despite-finding-higher-carbon-footprint-compared-conventional-agriculture/ (Source: Social media users)
• Scientific evidence shows that COVID-19 vaccines don’t increase the risk of heart attacks, contrary to Russell Brand video https://science.feedback.org/review/scientific-evidence-shows-covid19-vaccines-dont-increase-risk-heart-attacks-russell-brand/ (Source: Russell Brand)
• CGTN video rehashes baseless claim about U.S. biolabs in Ukraine https://science.feedback.org/review/cgtn-video-rehashes-baseless-claim-us-biolabs-ukraine-william-jones/ (Source: CGTN)

In assessing the approach to fact-checking as illustrated by the provided examples, it becomes apparent that the activities generally align with established criteria for non-partisanship, adherence to evidence, and methodological consistency.

The examples show a clear commitment to evaluating claims against established scientific evidence and data. This approach is indicative of a dedication to maintaining high standards of evidence, ensuring that all claims are scrutinized with equal rigor. 

The methodology employed in these fact checks is consistent across different claims, as outlined on the organization's website. This consistency is crucial for the credibility of the fact-checking process, ensuring that every claim is evaluated through a uniform lens.

The conclusions drawn in each fact check are rooted in the evidence presented, showcasing a reliance on scientific data and analysis.  

The selection of fact checks from a variety of sources, spanning different political and ideological spectrums, demonstrates an effort to maintain non-partisanship. This inclusivity of claims from diverse origins illustrates a balanced approach to fact-checking, focusing on the veracity of the claims rather than the background of their proponents. It reflects a commitment to impartiality, essential for the integrity of the fact-checking process.

Overall, the fact-checking activities as presented align with the general criteria of high standards of evidence, methodological consistency, evidence-driven conclusions, and non-partisanship. These practices suggest a structured approach to fact-checking that prioritizes accuracy, objectivity, and impartiality. 

See our Process page.

https://sciencefeedback.co/process/

Science Feedback editors select articles and claims for review from a variety of media—regardless of where they lay on the political spectrum—according to their influence on social media (typically measured by Buzzsumo, Crowdtangle, NewsWhip or other social media listening tools), the quantity or degree of claimed scientific evidence within the reporting, and potential relevance to shaping public debate.

Given that our selection process is based on virality and the presence of a scientific claim, our decision to review an article or a claim does not involve any consideration of “sides”, such as political parties or the advocacy of a certain policy over another.

As stated on our Process page, we strive for our reviews to be representative of the spectrum of influential science-related discussion in the media. We review articles and claims in a variety of media, without an a priori perspective, regardless of whether they insightfully report on or exaggerate scientific findings.

Their methodology for both claim reviews and article reviews are visible and positioned in an accessible location on their web site.

A methodology that aligns with the principles of social benefit as outlined by the IFCN is clearly discernible. This approach, notable for its reliability, clarity, and high-quality writing, prioritizes substance over the pursuit of popularity. Additionally, meticulous attention to detail is evident, including the specification of sources for rumors or news under examination, without any encountered issues.

I have not come across anything about support for any political organization or actor.

See https://science.feedback.org/editorial-independence/

“Science Feedback ensures that our staff are not directly involved in political parties or advocacy organizations that could bias their neutrality and undermine their commitment to scientific accuracy.”

and https://science.feedback.org/editorial-standards/ .

“Science Feedback is committed to non-partisanship. In assessing the credibility of a claim, editors should be guided by the facts at hand, and not permit a personal preference for one side over another to influence their judgment.”

“Editors may not hold a salaried or significant position in the government or in a political party, nor in public companies controlled by the aforementioned. Editors may not make statements endorsing a political party or candidate in the name of Science Feedback. This does not prevent editors from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in their personal capacity.”

The requirement is also included in our job postings, see for instance: https://sciencefeedback.co/hiring-science-editor-fact-checker-fr/

“Non-partisanship: Our staff and freelance contributors are required to not be involved in advocacy/political campaigning.”

They seem to have a commitment to objectivity and it is openly stated on their community standards page. 

They identify the source of all significant evidence, linking to it when available online. If not available online, they reference the evidence through other means such as quotations, photos, or images, ensuring each is properly cited. This process is applied consistently, aiming for transparency and verifiability in their presentation of evidence.

In reviewing their work, I've noticed they handle the organization and importance of information exceptionally well, covering both scientific content and the methods used to analyze it. They lay out facts and data clearly, ensuring each piece gets the attention it deserves in the overall story. This careful planning makes it easier for anyone reading to follow along and understand the bigger picture.

Their way of sorting and presenting information shows a deep grasp of the subject matter and the processes used to examine it. This approach sidesteps the common issues of overwhelming readers with too much information or leading to misunderstandings. Instead, they achieve a balance that not only upholds the integrity of their findings but also makes complex topics accessible and engaging for their audience. This thoughtful presentation aids in fostering a well-informed community, ready to engage with the material on a deeper level.

When I looked over a random selection of their claims, everything seemed to be in order. I didn't run into any issues or oddities with the key points I checked out. They all aligned well with the methodology they described.

The sources were clearly stated, transparent, and straightforward to analyze. They used an objective style of discourse that was easy for readers to understand, regardless of whether they regularly engage in critical analysis.

Science Feedback is an independent not-for-profit organization registered in France whose primary activity is the verification of influential science-related claims and articles online, relying on a global network of scientists to produce analyses and fact-checks. Its mission is summarized in its status as (translated from French):

“Article 2: Object

The association’s object is to evaluate the scientific credibility of information published and broadcasted in the media and on social media. Through the development of digital services dedicated to improve the accuracy of scientific information in the media and its accessibility to the public, the association aims to tackle the issue of online misinformation. The association acts notably via the organization of the scientific community to verify influential information (fact-checking) and to write pedagogical content about science.”

The status published in the “Journal Officiel” can be found here:

https://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/associations/detail-annonce/associations_b/20200022/888 .

A link to this page and the association’s status can be found on our About page https://science.feedback.org/about/

Science Feedback also has a subsidiary company called SciVerify that conducts commercial partnerships with platforms such as Meta and TikTok, as specified under our Partners and Funders page: https://science.feedback.org/partners-funders-donors/

This can be verified here: http://entreprises.lefigaro.fr/sciverify-75/entreprise-883937500

Their statement seems to be valid, as the documents they provided suggest.

https://science.feedback.org/partners-funders-donors/                            

All the partners, funders and donors are publicly listed.

https://science.feedback.org/team/ 

Team members are transparently listed. There is also a link to methodology that details how processes work and roles of people, above the team members section. Roles of people are also clearly mentioned. A paragraph about how they work is also present.

https://science.feedback.org/team/ 

Detailed biographies of people are involved. What would I suggest in future, since they are a science focused fact-checking organization is providing links for their team members' public science related profiles for people who have hesitancies about their biases etc. and give them an opportunity to go through their publications or scientific work if any. This is just a suggestion. No change requested.

Readers are able to contact us via this online form: https://science.feedback.org/contact-us/

The link to this form is present:

• in our Methodology Page (in the first section “SUGGEST AN ITEM TO REVIEW” where readers are encouraged to submit items for review),
• from any page in the footer, as well as
• at the bottom of every review.

Readers can also reach us via the respective contact pages on Climate Feedback and Health Feedback:

https://climatefeedback.org/contact-us/

https://healthfeedback.org/contact-us/  

I don't think only having a footer link for "contact us" page is a good enough for home page. They need a better visibility for those who want to reach out. In principle, like in their methodology page or in the bottom of articles, contact button that has call for action characteristics should be available.

https://science.feedback.org/process/ 

Their methodology is visible and positioned in an accessible location on their web site.

Science Feedback prioritizes fact-checking claims with high dissemination and substantial import. Furthermore, they endeavor to elucidate the underlying rationale for their selection of specific claims whenever practicable. Furthermore, they endeavor to elucidate the underlying rationale for their selection of specific claims whenever practicable. This targeted approach ensures their fact-checking efforts address the most impactful misinformation. Science Feedback aligns its claim selection with the mandate of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), focusing on issues that fall within IFCN's core areas of concern. 

Science Feedback operates in a challenging environment where even scientific research can be subject to intense debate. Despite these complexities, they prioritize a rigorous methodological approach. This commitment is essential to ensure the credibility and impact of their fact-checking efforts.

One key aspect of Science Feedback's methodology is their focus on a scientific and methodological hierarchy when evaluating sources. This prioritizes the most reliable and current information available. They also demonstrate a similar level of methodological rigor in their topic selection. This ensures they address the most critical and pressing issues, maximizing the potential impact of their work.

As far as I see, Science Feedback demonstrates a commitment to applying rigorous and consistent standards when evaluating evidence. They seem to ensure that all claims, regardless of their source, are assessed using the same high benchmarks according to my randomized checks.

In my random checks, I did not observe any clear violations of the criterion.

Readers submit suggestions of articles or claims to review via our contact form.

They are invited to do so at the bottom of every review with the following text:

“Please get in touch if you have any comment or think there is an important claim or article that would need to be reviewed.”

They are also invited to do so on the process page with the following text:

“If you wish to submit a suggestion of an article or claim to review, please use this online form. Please note that we focus on reviewing claims and articles that are scientifically verifiable and that reach large audiences.”

Process page: https://science.feedback.org/process/ 

We regularly review content suggested via this route.

Science Feedback is supposed to the same high standards when evaluating evidence for claims, regardless of the source. As I reviewed applications by Science Feedback in previous years as well, I received an email that combines some complaints about transparency and inclusivity in their fact-checking processes. Due to its open letter format, I'd like to include it with this evaluation (please see attached email).

I understand fact-checking organizations aren't obligated to incorporate every objection into their analyses. Section 5.4 itself reinforces this with the "high standards applied" requirement. My intention here is to highlight the importance of considering diverse viewpoints by including this email.

As I mentioned earlier, the polarizing environment can inevitably influence scientific verification practices in fact-checking, potentially reflecting commercial or financial agendas. My broader perspective suggests that even when criteria aren't breached, messages received by Science Feedback (public or private) could be addressed in various ways:

Case studies: These could be developed from the feedback to illustrate different perspectives.

Revised articles: New versions with explanations for omitting specific arguments or counterclaims could be published.

Implementing such transparency and inclusivity could bolster trust and confidence in Science Feedback's fact-checking processes. Additionally, considering diverse viewpoints can contribute to the growth and refinement of fact-checking as a scientific discipline. However, this is just a note that I'd like to share. I don't see this as a problem regarding compliancy of the organization but as a future topic they may focus on science scientific fact-checking is a controversial zone and issues they focus on are highly popular and critical.

Our correction policy is introduced on our About page

“We aim for our reviews to be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. If we discover a mistake has been made, we will correct it as soon as possible and a note will be added on the original item. If you think we’ve made an error or missed some relevant information, contact us.”

It is further described on this dedicated page: https://science.feedback.org/corrections-policy/  

It is commendable that Science Feedback only made three corrections in 2023, and their transparency about their correction policy is praiseworthy. 

However, a potential area for improvement lies in the lack of indication for articles that have been updated and corrected on different dates. Including the dates of these revisions within the metadata of the article's title section would provide a more transparent and comprehensive approach. While placing corrections in a dedicated paragraph at the bottom of the article adheres to methodology, showcasing an organization's acknowledgment of errors also contributes to the credibility of their fact-checking efforts. This transparency allows for clear visibility that errors have been addressed, along with providing a timeline for the corrections.

The policy, publicly available to readers, sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover. There is no conflicting finding about this issue.

Over the past year, we have been regularly contacted by readers when they thought one of our reviews included a mistake. In such cases, the author of the review is tasked with investigating the potential mistake and promptly correcting the article when necessary.

An example of a correction can be seen in this review for which we have added a figure that was initially missing from the article: https://science.feedback.org/review/baseless-claim-covid-19-vaccines-killed-more-than-200000-from-flawed-bmc-infectious-diseases-study/

Another example of a correction can be seen in this review, in which we initially made a mistake in the name of one of the sources quoted: https://science.feedback.org/review/studies-covid-19-vaccination-doesnt-increase-risk-death-misleading-video-europe-excess-death-john-campbell/

Other examples from 2022 and 2023 can be found at the bottom of our Corrections’ policy page:

https://science.feedback.org/corrections-policy/ 

All the corrections we have made this year were related to mistakes that did not change the overall verdict of the fact-check.

Science Feedback provides well-documented examples of processed correction requests and how they address changes, if implemented. That would be more beneficial to see how they approach to those whose correction requests they didn't find relevant via a case study or an official response they sent if available.

https://science.feedback.org/corrections-policy/ 

“In keeping with its status as a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Science Feedback (SF) must uphold the Code of Principles as set forth by the IFCN. If you believe that we have violated the Code of Principles, you may notify the IFCN by filing a complaint here.”

IFCN related information is visible on the website and all the related information to the criterion is provided.

N/A

No problem since such a relationship doesn't exist.