The IFCN welcomes new applications to its Code of Principles beginning Jan. 16, 2024. Our website is currently under renovation, so new signatories should begin the application process by emailing their interest to info@ifcn.org with "New Signatory" in the subject line.

Science Feedback

Organization: Science Feedback
Applicant: Dr. Emmanuel Vincent
Assessor: Sarphan Uzunoğlu

Background

This institution is a long-time IFCN member and accordingly, they have standardized practice in accordance with the methodology. They continue to meet all the criteria. Of course, we are in a period where standards in design and similar issues are very advanced, and the institution must adapt itself in these matters. They need a very serious reform in terms of diffusion, especially in the use of social networks. Nevertheless, the main criterion is that the institution continues to respond to the thematically emerging need for fact-checking, and I made my assessment in the context of this criterion.

Assessment Conclusion

In general, I have no problems with the activities of the institution. The methodology is fine. Their loyalty to and compliance with the methodology also continues.

The institution's publication policies take into account its knowledge of IFCN requirements. We are dealing with an organization that places a high value on reader input and can give readers a thorough explanation of its process. It is possible to say that they have advanced significantly over the past several years in a number of areas, including impartiality policies and error repair procedures. 

I cannot think of any justification for not renewing this institution's membership in the IFCN.

on 29-Dec-2022 (1 year ago)

Sarphan Uzunoğlu assesses application as Compliant

A short summary in native publishing language

In general, I have no problems with the activities of the institution. The methodology is fine. Their loyalty to and compliance with the methodology also continues.

The institution's publication policies take into account its knowledge of IFCN requirements. We are dealing with an organization that places a high value on reader input and can give readers a thorough explanation of its process. It is possible to say that they have advanced significantly over the past several years in a number of areas, including impartiality policies and error repair procedures.

I cannot think of any justification for not renewing this institution's membership in the IFCN.

Section 1: Eligibility to be a signatory

To be eligible to be a signatory, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 1.1 The applicant is a legally registered organization, or a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization, and details of this are easily found on its website.
  • 1.2 The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.
  • 1.3 The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application. For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track. Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.
  • 1.4 On average, at least 75% of the applicant’s fact checks focus on claims related to issues that, in the view of the IFCN, relate to or could have an impact on the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public or society.
  • 1.5 The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.
  • 1.6 If the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, it provides a statement on its site setting out to the satisfaction of the IFCN, how it ensures its funders do not influence the findings of its reports.

Criteria 1.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain where on your website you set out information about your organization’s legal status and how this complies with criteria. Attach a link to the relevant page of your website.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago)

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, Brazil, Spain, the U.K., and various other locations around the world.

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

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago)

Their legal status and statement is completely in line with the criteria.


done_all 1.1 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 1.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please answer the following questions – (see notes in Guidelines for Application on how to answer)

 1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?
 2. How many people work or volunteer in the organization and what are their roles?
 3. What different activities does your organization carry out?
 4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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

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. To that end, we provide feedback to editors and journalists about the credibility of information published by their outlets and share our expertise 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 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 12 people. The Founder and 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 full-stack developer and a Data & Policy officer. In addition to the team, there are 7 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. What different activities does your organization carry out?

Science Feedback writes reviews of individual claims or of entire articles as well as ‘Insight articles’ designed to investigate topics for which facts aren’t known with high confidence or to address talking points (narratives) that can mislead their audience but aren’t necessarily false. 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. Article reviews 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 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 scientists studying misinformation and for anyone to easily compare and contrast the credibility of different news sources. See https://open.feedback.org/.

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

And finally, through its participation in the company SciVerify, Science Feedback is working with Facebook and TikTok to help them review the veracity of 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 a team of science editors in the fields of climate change and health and expand our fact-checking activities in French. 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. To that end, we are actively involved in the task force of the European Code of Practice on Disinformation to help define regulations that will improve the credibility of information available to users of web platforms.

We also plan on further testing the usefulness of writing reviews addressing “misleading narratives” in addition to factually false information. For instance, the claim that “CO2 is plant food” is often used by climate contrarians to mislead readers into believing that CO2 is not problematic for other reasons, and this needs to be addressed in an article that brings relevant context to a reader, which is not necessarily a “fact-check”.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago)

1. Establishment of the organization is in line with its recent position.

2. Information they provided regarding people in the organization and their status of work is satisfactory.

3. I've seen no controversial operation that is not in line with their fact-checking activities.

4. Their goals are in line with IFCN's principles and seem to be very beneficial for global public.


done_all 1.2 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 1.3
Proof you meet criteria
- The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application.
- For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track.
- Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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

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

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

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Science Feedback has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application.

Their list of activities are satisfactory enough.


done_all 1.3 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 1.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous three months. No additional information required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I couldn't find any conflicting data or information regarding this.


done_all 1.4 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 1.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship your organization has to the state, politicians or political parties in the country or countries you cover. Also explain funding or support received from foreign as well as local state or political actors over the previous financial year.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

None

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

There seems to be no problem about this case.


done_all 1.5 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 1.6
Proof you meet criteria
If you confirmed the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, provide a link to where on your website you set out how you ensure the editorial independence of your work.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I've found no conflicting information.


done_all 1.6 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 2: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness

To be compliant on nonpartisanship and fairness, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 2.1 The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.
  • 2.2 The applicant does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to check and publishes a short statement on its website to set out how it selects claims to check.
  • 2.3 The applicant discloses in its fact checks relevant interests of the sources it quotes where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. It also discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships it has that a member of the public might reasonably conclude could influence the findings of the fact check.
  • 2.4 The applicant is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.
  • 2.5 The applicant sets out its policy on non-partisanship for staff on its site. Save for the issues of accuracy and transparency, the applicant’s staff do not get involved in advocacy or publicise their views on policy issues the organization might fact check in such a way as might lead a reasonable member of the public to see the organization’s work as biased.

Criteria 2.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please share links to 10 fact checks published over the past year that you believe demonstrate your non-partisanship.
Please briefly explain how the fact checks selected show that (I) you use the same high standards of evidence for equivalent claims, (II) follow the same essential process for every fact check and (III) let the evidence dictate your conclusions.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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 signing 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—regardless of where they lay on the political spectrum—according to their influence on social media (typically measured by Buzzsumo, Crowdtangle or other social media listening tools), the quantity or degree of claimed scientific evidence within the reporting, and potential relevance to shaping public debate. As seen in the list below, the vast majority of the claim authors we check are not politicians, but individuals making statements on scientific topics for which they have little or no expertise. While the association of health misinformation with political orientation before the COVID-19 pandemic was not common, we now observe in the U.S. an increasing association between the likelihood of acceptance of scientific information with political identity. This exhibits the same pattern observed with climate change information a couple decades earlier and still observed today. While the sources of misleading or inaccurate health information are not necessarily politically oriented, their claims have shown to be trusted and shared more predominantly by people who voted for one party, which is part of the reason why vaccine hesitancy follows partisan lines and Republicans are more likely than Democrats to die from COVID-19 (see here for instance https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-death-rates-higher-republicans-democrats-why-rcna50883 ).

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. Face masks don’t cause hypercapnia or blood acidity; no evidence indicates that these conditions increase cancer risk
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/face-masks-dont-cause-hypercapnia-blood-acidity-no-evidence-indicates-these-conditions-increase-cancer-risk-christina-parks/
  2. HIV infection is the cause of AIDS; persistent HIV/AIDS denialism relies on false information and is potentially deadly
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/hiv-infection-cause-aids-persistent-hiv-aids-denialism-relies-false-information-potentially-deadly/
  3. Complete vaccine coverage in the U.S. could have prevented almost a quarter of COVID-19 deaths
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/complete-vaccine-coverage-us-could-have-prevented-quarter-covid-19-deaths/
  4. Neither medical treatments nor errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/neither-medical-treatments-nor-errors-third-leading-cause-death-us-peter-glidden-martin-makary/
  5. Cancer is caused by mutations, not the body’s acidity; eating alkaline foods can’t alter the body’s pH to prevent or treat cancer
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/cancer-caused-by-gene-mutations-not-body-acidity-eating-alkaline-foods-cant-alter-body-ph-prevent-treat-cancer/
  6. Scientists have found that modern climate change is caused entirely by human activity, contrary to recent speculation by Joe Rogan
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/scientists-found-modern-climate-change-caused-entirely-by-human-activity-contrary-recent-speculation-joe-rogan-experience/
  7. Letter stating there is “no climate emergency” repeats inaccurate claims about climate science
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/letter-there-is-no-climate-emergency-repeats-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science-daily-sceptic-toby-young/
  8. The sun isn’t responsible for current climate change, contrary to claims in Suspicious0bservers YouTube video
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/the-sun-isnt-responsible-for-current-climate-change-contrary-claims-suspicious0bservers-ben-davidson/
  9. Robust scientific evidence supports that human activity drives global warming, contrary to claims in a CO2 Coalition blog post by Andy May
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/robust-scientific-evidence-supports-human-activity-drives-global-warming-contrary-to-claims-co2-coalition-blog-post-andy-may/
  10. Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steven Koonin publishes misleading claims about how climate change influences Greenland ice melt
    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-steven-koonin-publishes-misleading-claims-climate-change-influences-greenland-ice-melt/
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Their guide regarding overall credibility rating and making reviewers evaluate articles is still very effective and interesting. Community standards policy is also well defined and seems to be good for them.



done_all 2.1 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 2.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you explain how you select claims to check, explaining how you ensure you do not unduly concentrate your fact-checking on any one side, and how you consider the reach and importance of the claims you select to check.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

On our Process page.

https://sciencefeedback.co/process/

Science Feedback editors select articles and claims for review from a variety of media outlets—regardless of where they lay on the political spectrum—according to their influence on social media (typically measured by Buzzsumo.com), whether they claim to be based on scientific evidence, 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.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

They still have a comprehensive focus in terms of the sources they check.

Their explanatory section regarding the process is still highly accessible and understandable for experts and regular readers.

Moreover, their understanding of the importance of the event and how they evaluate is also well-explained.


done_all 2.2 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 2.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

When I look at the work of this long-time IFCN signatory, I did not see any problems. An approach that is consistent with the methodology, in line with IFCN's social benefit principles, can be easily observed.

It can be mentioned about an approach that is reliable, well-written, understandable, and replaces the concern of being popular with a focus on quality.

I did not encounter any problems, from form-based details such as specifying the source of the rumor or the news reviewed.


done_all 2.3 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 2.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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


done_all 2.4 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 2.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you publish a statement setting out your policy on non-partisanship for staff and how it ensures the organization meets this criteria.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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.”

The requirement is also included in our job postings, see for instance: https://sciencefeedback.co/hiring-science-editor-fact-checker-fr/which mentions: "Non-partisanship: Our staff and freelance contributors are required to not be involved in advocacy/political campaigning."

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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


done_all 2.5 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 3: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources

To be compliant on sources, applicants must meet these four criteria

  • 3.1 The applicant identifies the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks, providing relevant links where the source is available online, in such a way that users can replicate their work if they wish. In cases where identifying the source would compromise the source’s personal security, the applicant provides as much detail as compatible with the source’s safety.
  • 3.2 The applicant uses the best available primary, not secondary, sources of evidence wherever suitable primary sources are available. Where suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source.
  • 3.3 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.
  • 3.4 The applicant identifies in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.

Criteria 3.1
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

They identify the source of all significant evidence, link it and refer to it whenever they are available online, if no through other reference types quoting, photos or images with proper references etc.


done_all 3.1 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 3.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I've come across no problematic approach to information hierarchy neither in scientific terms or methodological terms.


done_all 3.2 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 3.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I did not encounter any problems or irregularities regarding the key elements of claims I randomly examined. Everything was in harmony with the methodology.


done_all 3.3 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 3.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Sources were clearly stated, clear, and easy to analyze. An objective discourse was used that the reader could easily understand whether or not he had a critical literacy habit.


done_all 3.4 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 4: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization

To be compliant on funding and organization, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 4.1 Applicants that are independent organizations have a page on their website detailing each source of funding accounting for 5% or more of total revenue for its previous financial year. This page also sets out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
  • 4.2 Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.
  • 4.3 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.
  • 4.4 A page on the applicant’s website details the professional biography of all those who, according to the organizational structure and play a significant part in its editorial output.
  • 4.5 The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.

Criteria 4.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please confirm whether you are an ‘independent organization’
or ‘the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization’ and share proof of this organizational status.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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

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

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

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I find all the information provided satisfactory and understandable enough. They are an independent not-for-profit organization and its status proves that too.


done_all 4.1 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 4.2
Proof you meet criteria
If your organization is an “independent organization”, please share a link to the page on your website where you detail your funding and indicate the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
If your organization is “the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization”, please share a link to the statement on your website about your ownership.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

There is a page that details their funding and indicates the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc) on their website.


done_all 4.2 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 4.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out your organizational structure, making clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

They have a team page that outlines who are their staff and how they organize the workflow.


done_all 4.3 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 4.4
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out the professional biographies of those who play a significant part in your organization’s editorial output.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The professional short biographies of those who play a significant part in the organizational structure is publicly available.


done_all 4.4 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 4.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you encourage users to communicate with your editorial team.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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

The link to this form is present in our Methodology Page (in the first section), 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/ 

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

They have an accessible contact us page. Last year, I told them that I believe that the ways of contacting can be more encouraged and become more visible. I still think more call for actions might be better but it is not a change request but more of a suggestion.


done_all 4.5 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 5: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology

To be compliant on methodology, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 5.1 The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.
  • 5.2 The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and where possible explains the reason for choosing the claim to check.
  • 5.3 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.
  • 5.4 The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.
  • 5.5 The applicant seeks where possible to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence, noting that (I) this is often not possible with online claims, (II) if the person who makes the claim fails to reply in a timely way this should not impede the fact check, (III) if a speaker adds caveats to the claim, the fact-checker should be free to continue with checking the original claim, (IV) fact-checkers may not wish to contact the person who made the claim for safety or other legitimate reasons.
  • 5.6 The applicant encourages users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

Criteria 5.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to the statement on your website that explains the methodology you use to select, research, write and publish your fact checks.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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


done_all 5.1 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 5.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I've observed no problems at all regarding violation of methodology in analyses I went through. While picking claims, the organization is royal to their self-statement in methodology regarding importance of claims and they set their priorities accordingly.


done_all 5.2 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 5.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

It acts with an objective approach and in accordance with the scientific method. All kinds of supportive or conflicting credible information are tried to be included in the analyses.


done_all 5.3 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 5.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The content of the claim and related sources are handled rather than the claimant. Accordingly, compliance with this criterion has been achieved.


done_all 5.4 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 5.5
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Where possible and methodologically necessary, the source is contacted in accordance with the criteria.


done_all 5.5 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 5.6
Proof you meet criteria
Please describe how you encourage users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable. Include links where appropriate. If you do not allow this, explain why.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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/

We regularly review content suggested via this route.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Users are regularly invited to send feedback or their suggestions. 


done_all 5.6 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Section 6: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy

To be compliant on corrections policy, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 6.1 The applicant has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily visible and accessible on the organization’s website or frequently referenced in broadcasts.
  • 6.2 The policy sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may justify no response. This policy is adhered to scrupulously.
  • 6.3 Where credible evidence is provided that the applicant has made a mistake worthy of correction, the applicant makes a correction openly and transparently, seeking as far as possible to ensure that users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.
  • 6.4 The applicant, if an existing signatory, should either on its corrections/complaints page or on the page where it declares itself an IFCN signatory inform users that if they believe the signatory is violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN, with a link to the IFCN site.
  • 6.5 If the applicant is the fact-checking unit of a media company, it is a requirement of signatory status that the parent media company has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy.

Criteria 6.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to where you publish on your website your corrections or complaints policy. If you are primarily a broadcaster, please provide evidence you frequently reference your corrections policy in broadcasts.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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.”

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Their complaints policy is well described and publicly available on their web site.


done_all 6.1 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 6.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the corrections policy to verify it meets critera. No additional information needed.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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.


done_all 6.2 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 6.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a short statement about how the policy was adhered to over the previous year (or six months if this is the first application) including evidence of two examples of the responses provided by the applicant to a correction request over the previous year. Where no correction request has been made in the previous year, you must state this in your application, which will be publicly available in the assessment if your application is successful.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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 warning in the corrected paragraph ([Editor’s note: This paragraph was corrected; see here for details.]) linking to further explanation in a correction notice at the bottom of the post: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-that-previously-infected-people-dont-transmit-covid-19-unsupported-misinterpretation-of-cdc-foia-response/

Another example of a correction can be seen in this review, in which we initially made a mistake in the affiliation of one of the experts quoted https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/german-autopsy-report-didnt-covid-19-vaccines-likely-cause-sudden-deaths/

Other examples:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-reduce-risk-death-contrary-to-mark-steyns-misleading-interpretation-mortality-data-gb-news/

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/scientific-evidence-shows-covid-19-vaccination-reduces-risk-infection-mortality-analysis-cases-deaths-from-145-countries-methodologically-flawed-steve-kirsch/

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

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Their answers and examples regarding this criteria are satisfactory and their practice is up to methodological standards.


done_all 6.3 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 6.4
Proof you meet criteria
If you are an existing signatory, please provide a link to show where on your site you inform users that if they believe you are violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN of this, with a link to the complaints page on the IFCN site.

Science Feedback
20-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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.”

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

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


done_all 6.4 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.

Criteria 6.5
Proof you meet criteria
If you are the fact-checking unit of a media company, please provide a link to the parent media company’s honest and open corrections policy and provide evidence that it adheres to this.

Sarphan Uzunoğlu Assessor
23-Dec-2022 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

No problem since such a relationship doesn't exist.


done_all 6.5 marked as Compliant by Sarphan Uzunoğlu.