Science journalists can sometimes take on the role of watchdogs, exposing issues in and with science itself. To shed light on the importance of this and the challenges this type of journalism is facing, we spoke with Dr Alice Fleerackers.
Dr Fleerackers is Assistant Professor of Journalism and Civic Engagement at the Department of Media Studies, University of Amsterdam (the Netherlands). She also serves as the Vice President of the Public Communication of Science and Technology network (PCST). Together with her colleagues An Nguyen (Bournemouth University, UK), Alfred Hermida (University of British Columbia, Canada), and Ivan Oransky (co-founder Retraction Watch, US), she is currently working on a research project on watchdog science journalism.
How do you define “watchdog science journalism”, and what makes it different from simply being a critical or investigative journalist?
The core idea is that this is investigative journalism exposing issues in and with science itself.
What makes it unique is the perspective it takes. It approaches the institution of science as powerful, but not necessarily benevolent or always trustworthy.
This idea of being a watchdog who is monitoring and “keeping an eye out”, is I think sometimes missing from other kinds of journalism.
A watchdog role isn’t often the first thing that comes to mind in science journalism. What motivated you to research this specific area?
Alice Fleerackers: Science, like any system, is not perfect. Sometimes it messes up. In recent years, I’ve been seeing more news about research retractions, fraud, image generation, and of course, the rise of generative AI impacting academic publishing.
I grew increasingly worried and realised that this is a crucial role that journalism is traditionally supposed to play: monitoring the powerful and holding them to account when their actions put the public at risk.
For some reason, this watchdog role hasn’t been given as much attention in science journalism.
Me and my colleagues are mostly focusing on journalists’ coverage of research integrity issues: fraud, image fabrication, ethics breaches, and things like that.
Your research suggests not all science journalists are equipped for this watchdog role. What are the main barriers preventing them from adopting this approach?
Alice Fleerackers: The first barrier is loud and clear: time and resources. This is an incredibly resource-intensive form of reporting, requiring extensive research and fact-checking, especially when people’s careers are on the line. Journalists really struggle to find that support, in part because so few media outlets have the money for this work. As a result, many people who are doing it are freelancers.
Another major issue is legal concerns, especially for freelancers who don’t have the protection of a media outlet. There are significant worries about libel law, and some journalists told us that certain stories “just don’t end up getting published” They can’t risk being drawn into a legal battle that could cost thousands of dollars they simply don’t have.
A final barrier is that sources are not willing to go on the record. Early-career researchers don’t want to be quoted publicly critiquing a major figure in their field. Often, the people best positioned to scrutinise the science know the researcher personally, and journalists told us they struggled to find experts who were comfortable calling out these problems publicly.
Dr. Fleerackers presenting her work at the PCST 2025 conference, Aberdeen, UK. © Alice Fleerackers.
Beyond the challenges for individual journalists, what are the institutional challenges that hinder watchdog science journalism?
Alice Fleerackers: There are significant problems within the system of science itself. Many journalists we spoke with noted that science’s own system for monitoring and filtering out “crummy science” isn’t working well enough. It can take a very long time for bad research to be retracted, if it’s retracted at all, where studies have found a median time of about two years.
One recent Retraction Watch story even discussed papers that were retracted 20 years after they were first flagged as problematic.
The other institutional-level challenge is that many organisations act as gatekeepers during investigations. Instead of helping journalists shed light on issues, they often prevent them from doing their work.
Journalists for example described an ambivalent relationship with press officers from universities who would deny them access to scientists, documents, or official statements. They told me it often wasn’t even worth filing a Freedom of Information request, because the process takes forever, costs a lot of money, and the information received would be almost useless.
We hear that many institutions simply shut down to save their image rather than support the effort to unearth a big problem.
Looking at the European context, what are the most urgently needed institutional or systemic changes to support this work?
Alice Fleerackers: I think we need to fund this work. In the Netherlands, where I’m working, there are special grants available for journalists to pursue these kinds of in-depth, labour-intensive investigations. It’s not a perfect fix, but these funds do allow really important projects to happen. Ideally, we would have more long-term, sustained funding available; this means investing in something that’s so important for our collective wellbeing.
On the side of science itself, scientists could do more to publicly call attention to problematic science when they see it.
There is also a need to make science more open and transparent so others can scrutinise it, by publishing open data sets, using open access venues, and ensuring that methods sections are actually detailed enough for someone to follow. It’s clear from every study I’ve done: science journalists can’t do what they do, unless scientists are supporting them to do it well.
Finally, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of watchdog science journalism?
Alice Fleerackers: It can be a bit depressing to study watchdog science journalism, and science journalism in general. There are so many things working against it, and it is so hard. But that is also one of the reasons it’s so inspiring.
Science journalists do so much with so little. They are incredibly motivated and persistent, finding creative ways to make their work happen, to shine a light on the truth, and to make the world just a little bit better. Working on these studies has been a powerful reminder of that commitment, creativity, and resilience. It’s that resilience that keeps me optimistic.