The Conversation is a news and analysis site that publishes analyses by academics. Our FactChecks are commissioned by the FactCheck editor, penned by academics with subject expertise, edited by professional journalists trained in fact checking, and blind reviewed by a second academic expert. We do not allow opinion to creep into our FactChecks, and ensure only impartial and unbiased academics are commissioned to write and review FactChecks. We fact check public figures from all sides of politics and public life, and encourage readers to submit claims and quotes they think are worth checking.

The Conversation Media Group Limited is registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ABN: 44 142 923 653 and ACN: 142 923 653). As a not-for-profit, it is also registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Charity ABN 44 142 923 653, see here http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?SearchText=44142923653). Our stakeholder report for 2017 is here: https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/14/2017_Stakeholder_Report_The_Conversation.pdf?1518052945 and includes detail on our FactCheck unit. 

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-indigenous-australians-the-most-incarcerated-people-on-earth-78528 (Claim made by community leader)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-it-four-degrees-hotter-110-000-years-ago-73045 (Claim made by independent Senator)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-700-000-workers-be-ripped-off-by-penalty-rate-cuts-as-bill-shorten-said-75048 (Claim made by left-leaning Labor Party)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-around-5-000-jobs-at-risk-if-pokies-are-removed-from-pubs-and-clubs-in-tasmania-91149 (Claim made by conservative Liberal Party)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-the-facts-on-birth-rates-for-muslim-couples-and-non-muslim-couples-in-australia-81183 (Claim shared by social media team of a national television show)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-can-native-title-only-exist-if-australia-was-settled-not-invaded-90540 (Claim made by conservative Liberal Party member)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-queensland-labor-created-more-than-four-times-as-many-jobs-as-the-lnp-87315 (Claim made by left-leaning Labor party)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-the-safe-schools-program-contain-highly-explicit-material-87437 (Claim made by conservative minor party One Nation)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-80-of-australians-and-up-to-70-of-catholics-and-anglicans-support-euthanasia-laws-76079 (comment made by author and euthanaisa campaigner)

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-bank-profits-belong-to-everyday-australians-88156 (Claim made by banking industry lobby group)

Our process: The FactCheck editors and readers identify a claim worth checking. We find an academic with real expertise, and no real or perceived conflicts of interest, to write the FactCheck. We also give the person we are fact-checking the right of reply. Our professional FactCheck journalists rigorously edit and fact-check the academics’ work. We then ask a second academic to be a blind reviewer. Our blind reviewers are required to be experts in their field and impartial in their analysis. They scrutinise the draft for errors or bias, without knowing who wrote it. Throughout the process, our FactCheck Editors play devil's advocate: pushing the experts to defend their reasoning, and removing unwanted opinion or jargon. Following that process, another experienced Conversation editor reads it with fresh eyes. On the rare occasion when mistakes are made, our corrections are quick and transparent. Above all, we want to be fair and accurate.

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

Our FactChecks are authored by academics. Every academic must fill in a disclosure statement EVERY time they write for The Conversation. This disclosure statement is published with their byline in the article. The disclosure questions: 1. Do you work for, consult with or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article? 2. Do you receive, or have you previously received, any relevant external funding, including government-funded, foundation or research council grants? 3. Do you have any other relevant affiliations that should be disclosed? This includes currently being a member of or volunteer for a political party, industry association, not-for-profit group, think tank or other politically active bodies.

We do not commission academics to author FactChecks if any of the answers to the disclosure questions present a real or perceived conflict of interest.

As for the editors who commission and edit the FactChecks, they are bound by our staff HR policy that says:

"Editors must always declare an interest when editing about something with

which he or she has a clear connection, this includes holding stock (shares)

in a company. See also policy on conflicts of interest.

The declaration of potential conflict should be made to the managing Editor

(ME) or Editor-in-chief (EIC) for a decision prior to starting on the work.

Full transparency means the Editor’s disclosure statement will appear on the

article to the public."

And also:

"Any time a question of fairness or accuracy is raised about any aspect of our

work, whether by an Author, subject or member of the public, the editors

involved should discuss the issue with the Managing Editor and or the Editor

in Chief to decide what response is warranted.... Normal activities - outside work, investments, political activism - pose special problems for journalists. Often, it's best to avoid activities that might interfere with your ability to function as a journalist. Alternatively, you may be precluded from working on certain topics."

And from our staff social media policy:

"Beware anything that could indicate your political preferences or views. This

doesn't mean you can't comment on particular policy areas, but don’t

deride or put down figures from any side of politics. Be careful of anything

that will appear partisan or identify you as hostile."

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

We link to sources throughout our FactChecks, as detailed in our guide to the FactCheck process here: https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158

We require our Fact check authors to support their arguments with links to publicly available information, and/or to the spreadsheets they have used to make calculations based on custom-made data sets.

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

https://theconversation.com/au/partners

The Conversation needs to explicitly list its spending for the last year or link to an annual report where a member of the public would be able to find it. 

As you can see, https://theconversation.com/au/factcheck, all our FactChecks identify the lead author and blind reviewer. Each author has their own profile page, which readers can find by clicking on their names and photos in the byline of the FactCheck. Our Conversation editor profiles are here https://theconversation.com/au/team 

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

https://theconversation.com/au/corrections and https://theconversation.com/au/contact-us. We also encourage readers to contact us with quotes they'd like FactChecked with this 'call-out- added to the end of every FactCheck article: "Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible."

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

https://theconversation.com/just-the-facts-maam-a-guide-to-the-conversations-factcheck-process-61158. Our process was also profiled in Poynter here http://www.poynter.org/2016/should-journalists-outsource-fact-checking-to-academics/391230/ You can also view a video explaining the process here: https://theconversation.com/how-we-do-factchecks-at-the-conversation-73134

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

This 'call out' is included at the end of every FactCheck: "Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible." We frequently request FactCheck ideas from our readers, including through the nationally broadcast Q&A program, which is aired on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation every Monday: https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-to-fact-check-panellists-on-qanda-45714. See examples of Twitter call-outs here https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FACTCHECK%20%23qanda&src=typd&lang=en. During recent state elections, we have also asked readers to submit claims they would like us to fact check: https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-is-fact-checking-the-queensland-election-and-we-want-to-hear-from-you-86779

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

https://theconversation.com/au/corrections. From our staff HR policy: "When mistakes are made, we will correct – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.”

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements 

Our unique blind review process helps us ensure we catch errors before they are made. We made one correction to a 2015 article in 2018, after a reader pointed out we had the job title of a person discussed in the article incorrect. The article, and the correction note at the end, can be viewed here:

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-have-any-refugees-who-came-to-australia-gone-on-to-be-terrorists-51192

The evidence is fully compliant with the requirements