Science Feedback is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization 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 the United States and various other locations around the world. 

For more information, see our About page: https://sciencefeedback.co/about/

Science Feedback is a non registered in France whose mission is defined in its status as to improve the credibility of science-related information online. 

The organization is set for purposes that fit IFCN's verification of information focused values and standards. 

1.

Science Feedback originated with the Climate Feedback project, which started 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 there exists a large amount of viral misinformation.

Our objective is to contribute to creating an Internet where users will have access to scientifically sound and trustworthy information. We thus provide feedback to editors and journalists about the credibility of information published by their outlets and share our data with web platforms so they can improve the credibility of information they surface to users.

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

2.

The Science Feedback team currently consists of 11 people. The Founder and Director is Emmanuel Vincent. There are 6 Science Editors who cover health, climate, biology, and ecology. Science Feedback also employs a Chief of Operations, a Tech Lead, a Fundraising and Development Officer, and a Finance and Partnership Lead. In addition to the team, there are 5 advisors for Science Feedback as well as several hundred scientists who contribute to article and claim reviews.

For more details on our staff, advisors, and reviewers see: https://sciencefeedback.co/team-advisors-contributors/

https://climatefeedback.org/community/

https://healthfeedback.org/community/

3.

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 clearly stated summary of the scientists’ comments as well as the result of their own investigations of the scientific literature.

For more information about our process and our guidelines to evaluate the scientific credibility of articles, see https://sciencefeedback.co/process/, and for claims, see https://sciencefeedback.co/claim-reviews-framework/.

In addition to these fact-checking efforts, Science Feedback also collaborates with other institutions to archive fact-checking data attached to the domains that published the original claims, with the aim of creating a useful resource for anyone to easily compare and contrast the credibility of different news sources, and promoting the most reliable sources of information.

4.

One of our goals over the coming year is to sustain a team of science editors in the fields of climate change and health and expand it to covering other topics prone to misinformation or that can be challenging for Internet users to sort reality from misinformation, such as statistics, ecology or history for instance. Another important goal of ours is to collaborate with other institutions to find scalable ways by which we can significantly improve the reliability of information available to all online.

1. Their history is well defined.

2. Their advisors and contributors are openly shared with their audience with their biographies and roles within the organization. Detailed data about their human resources policy is available on the site.

3. They only have credible collaborations with relevant and scientific organizations for the collection and verification of data. There is nothing that jeopardizes their fact-checking activities with these joint efforts.

4. Reasonable objectives for the coming year.

Science Feedback provides scientific fact-checks both in the form of article reviews and claim reviews.

Article reviews invite scientists to fact-check a number of claims at once and provide in-depth analysis on a whole article. Beyond checking 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.

Claim reviews are focused on checking the veracity of individual claims, which are extracted from prominent articles, statements by politicians, or influencers on social media.

Archives of all our claim reviews can be found here: https://sciencefeedback.co/claim-reviews/ 

Archives of our climate claim reviews and article reviews can be found here: https://climatefeedback.org/claim-reviews/ and https://climatefeedback.org/feedbacks/

Archives of our health claim reviews and article reviews can be found here: https://healthfeedback.org/claim-reviews/ and https://healthfeedback.org/feedbacks/

1. They regularly published fact-checks with relevant frequency in last 6 months.

2. They have around 4-5 fact-checks per week in average.

Health and science can be easily defined as most-determining issues in daily life of individuals from all societies. Accordingly, fact-checks by Science Feedback directly contribute to human kind and I think they have a proper role in the fight against most malicious types of disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.

None

Their claim seems valid. They seem to have no cooperation with such actors and my background check showed that too.

N/A

I can't collect any proof that they receive funding from the local or foreign state or political sources. There is no proof of that on their web site or elsewhere. 

So, we need to rely on their statement and publicly available well functioning financial model.

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://sciencefeedback.co/process/#tit4 .

Scientists contributing to our analyses are asked to conform to high quality community standards upon sign up, which require them to comment only on claims related to their expertise. (Read our community standards: https://sciencefeedback.co/community-standards/)

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

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.

1. Still no evidence that hydroxychloroquine can cure or prevent COVID-19

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/still-no-evidence-that-hydroxychloroquine-can-cure-or-prevent-covid-19/

2. A proportion of COVID-19 survivors are likely to suffer from long-term health problems, but the actual risks are still unknown

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/a-proportion-of-covid-19-survivors-are-likely-to-suffer-from-long-term-health-problems-but-the-actual-risks-are-still-unknown/

3. Infant deaths did not decrease during the pandemic due to a reduced use of vaccines; vaccines are not associated with sudden infant death syndrome

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/infant-deaths-did-not-decrease-during-the-pandemic-due-to-a-reduced-use-of-vaccines-vaccines-are-not-associated-with-sudden-infant-death-syndrome/

4. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 may have a higher fatality rate than the flu, but a definitive conclusion requires more studies

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/current-evidence-suggests-that-covid-19-may-have-a-higher-fatality-rate-than-the-flu-but-a-definitive-conclusion-requires-more-studies-washington-post/

5. People who do not show symptoms can contribute to significant COVID-19 transmission, contrary to CNBC report

https://healthfeedback.org/evaluation/people-who-do-not-show-symptoms-contribute-to-significant-covid-19-transmission-contrary-to-cnbc-report/

6. Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/

7. Article in The Guardian misleads readers about sensitivity of climate models by narrowly focusing on single study

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-in-the-guardian-misleads-readers-about-sensitivity-of-climate-models-by-narrowly-focusing-on-single-study-jonathan-watts/

8. Study evaluates natural and human causes of recent rapid warming rate at the South Pole

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/study-evaluates-natural-and-human-causes-of-recent-rapid-warming-rate-at-the-south-pole/

9. The Antarctic ozone layer is recovering, but The Independent claim fails to grasp significance of study it relies on

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/the-antarctic-ozone-layer-is-recovering-but-the-independent-claim-fails-to-grasp-significance-of-study-it-relies-on/

10. Electroverse article incorrectly claims the Sun is behind climate change

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/electroverse-article-incorrectly-claims-the-sun-is-behind-climate-change/

Their reports rely on multiple and prestigious sources. These sources are also checked with cross-checks with equally reputable other sources. They mostly don't "self-reference" or refer to same type of scientific authorities or actors. Even in terms of variety of journals or studies referred, there is geographical and national diversity in them.

On our Process page.

https://sciencefeedback.co/process/

Science Feedback editors select articles and claims for review from a variety of media outlets—across the political spectrum—according to their influence on social media (typically measured by Buzzsumo.com), 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 a priori perspective, regardless of whether they insightfully report on or exaggerate scientific findings.

They have a comprehensive focus in terms of the sources they check. Using Buzzsumo.com to understand the impact factor of articles and multimedia material they fact-check is an acceptable and reliable method.

Due to their subjects and trending character of these subjects, selection of claims became a very delicate issue for them most possibly. 

They also enable their visitors to send claims. 

I think, still, they should explain how they select claims to fact-check in a more detailed way on their process page. This way, it is a little unsatisfactory for curious readers and experts. 

In the current analysis, the following methods are used to prevent conflicts of interest and to better understand the identities of the sources:

Referencing

Linking

Both methods make it easier for readers to search for the backgrounds of people used as sources. Both institutions and individuals are referred by links very often within the text and it enables every reader to click and open them on a new tab to do further research on the claims they read. It provided me the advantage of checking several stories by them.

I've made keyword related searches on the web site to see if there are any related keywords that can relate the web site with any candidates or political figures. As a result, I found no proof that can directly relate Science Feedback with any of mainstream or alternative political actors in the USA or France. Especially since it is a crowdsourced fact-checking process, it is hard to define each source and their political orientations one by one. However, as an institution, they don't have any direct connections with political actors.

https://sciencefeedback.co/community-standards/

“Science Feedback’s commitment to objectivity

Science Feedback is dedicated to science education and does not advocate for any particular policy, nor does it support any political candidate or party.

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.” 

They have an open statement about their commitment to objectivity in their community standards page which promises that their staff are not directly involved in political parties or advocacy organizations that could bias their neutrality and undermine their commitment to scientific accuracy.

In all their fact-checks, besides their use of objective language and commitment to the methodology, linking and references is highly used almost comparable to international academic standards.

Only when suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source. However, as most of the fact-checks are scientific, use of secondary sources in the academic sense don't pose a threat to factfulness or quality of verification.

They refer to multiple studies and papers in their articles and the sample size of these fact-checks are also compared and analyzed with reference to global academic standards. They are very critical and questioning about research pieces they refer to or link to. 

The applicant checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence save where the one source is the only source relevant on the topic. And this is one of the best qualities of this platform. Multiple scientists and studies are referred in each article to reach an objective conclusion.

I've not seen a relevant and conflicting example of violation of this criteria.

Science Feedback is an independent non-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 the science.”

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

http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/publications/assoc/pdf/2018/0036/JOAFE_PDF_Unitaire_20180036_01090.pdf

Science Feedback also owns a company called SciVerify that conducts its business operations as specified under our Partners and Funders page: https://sciencefeedback.co/partners-funders-donors/

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

Translated section from their status is satisfactory in terms of their independency status. It is also recognized by the governmental authorities with this status. They openly define their relationship with SciVerify too. 

https://sciencefeedback.co/partners-funders-donors/

They are highly open about their administrative and financial structure and supporters. Their partnerships and donors are well-described on the web site too.

https://sciencefeedback.co/team-advisors-contributors/

There is a statement on the applicant’s website sets out the applicant’s organizational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

They enable people to understand various roles within the organization and who act under these roles. There is also a section named how we work too.

Since they involved advisors too, it became more transparent.

https://sciencefeedback.co/team-advisors-contributors/

All team members are named with photos and relevant links are provided when needed. Biographies of the crew members are also included on their team, advisors and contributors page.

Readers contact us via this online form: https://sciencefeedback.co/contact-us/

This form is linked from our Methodology Page (in the first section), from any page in the footer, as well as at the bottom of every review.

They can also do so via the respective contact pages on Climate Feedback and Health Feedback:

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

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

They have a well functioning form that enables people to get in touch with them.

Still, I believe that they should encourage us of various channels other than the web site. The use of web sites are way less frequent than ever in global statistics. Better use of social networks and dark social to get feedback and claims are a must.

Methodology for article reviews https://sciencefeedback.co/process/ ; Methodology for claim reviews https://sciencefeedback.co/claim-reviews-framework/

Their methodologies for article reviews and claim reviews are scientifically relevant, methodologically modern and well-detailed. They are also understandable for regular users.

It is seen that claims they check are selected from issues that became popular both nationally and internationally. Their scientific and health-related focus made it easier for them to catch stories to check apparently and they have been successful enough. When I checked virality of the claims they checked, I found out via crowdtangle and buzzsumo that, they are popular issues covered by multiple sources and shared by masses.

The applicant sets out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it. Their fact-checks with negative and positive results have well-written sections devoted to each case to explain the reader why evidences support or undermine the claim. They do not just refer, they question sources they referred and through methodology and comparisons they provide self-accountability for their decisions or statements about claims.

There are no unfair decisions or evaluations in terms of standards applied to evidences in different cases. They are well adjusted to standards they set and they use their methodology in a proper way.

As they mostly fact-check scientific claims or science-related claims that are not that dependent on subjectivity, this criteria does not fit perfectly to the organization. They have a more scientifically relevant and methodologically approvable way of approaching the issues they cover. They mostly rely on texts or media rather than people since scientific information can only be discussed this way. 

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://sciencefeedback.co/process/

In the world where we need scientifically relevant information the most as humanity, platforms like Science Feedback should be more open for their audience to send them claims. I know how hard it is to covery every other claim. However, considering partnerships they have and precariousness of the issues they cover in this polarized post-truth media and politics environment, they need to become more accessible. New contact forms or methods are necessary. 

Our correction policy is described here: https://sciencefeedback.co/about/

“We aim for our “feedbacks” 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.”

Their correction policy is explained well on the web site.

What we do section openly tells readers and experts what do they do and how they describe their coverage.

Two recent examples of corrections made by Science Feedback over the previous year:

On 25 June 2020, a reader contacted us to point out an inaccuracy in the comparative sizes of gas molecules and the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This error appeared in two fact-checks and was promptly corrected on the same day, with a correction notice added to each fact-check, which indicated the error and the date of correction, as well as provided the correct information. This correction did not alter our fact-checks’ verdict. See below for relevant fact-checks:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/wearing-face-masks-does-not-cause-hypercapnia-or-affect-the-immune-system/

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/facebook-posts-spread-unsupported-anonymous-claim-that-face-mask-use-caused-a-lung-infection-in-a-healthy-teenager/ 

Separately, inhttps://sciencefeedback.co/about/ another fact-check, we were notified that the wrong photo was used to identify one of the authors of the article we reviewed. The co-author Patrick Corbett was mistaken for James Corbett of the Corbett Report. This error was corrected on 7 August 2020; the correction did not alter our verdict: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/people-have-died-from-the-coronavirus-contrary-to-article-claiming-to-report-pathologists-revelations-on-covid-19/

Samples provided for corrections they made are satisfactory and in alignment with their correction policy.

https://sciencefeedback.co/about/

“In keeping with its status as a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), Science Feedback 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.”

Statement with link is available.

N/A