Participant Characteristics
Table 1 provides demographic and social characteristics of study participants. Journalists (n = 13) included those who, at the time of interview, were working as freelance journalists (n = 5) or staff writers (n = 8). Staff writers represented seven different media outlets, of which five were online science/technology media outlets, one outlet was a daily newspaper, and one was an in-depth reporting magazine. Four journalists were currently or previously had also worked as media editors. In addition to being a freelance journalist, one participant worked as a journalistic fact-checker. Ten journalists had at least some undergraduate education in a STEM-related field including five who held PhDs in a STEM subject.
Journal editors (n = 10) represented six different scientific journals at the time of interview. All had handled SBG-related papers. Some were professional full-time editors (n = 7), while others worked as part-time associate editors (n = 3). All three of the part-time associate editors were active genetics researchers. One of the full-time editors was retired from the profession at the time of interview. All journal editors held PhDs.
Although interviews were conducted between September 2024 and May 2025, 46% of journalists were interviewed after the 2025 presidential inauguration and 40% of editors were interviewed after the 2025 presidential inauguration. It is possible that the change in the sociopolitical climate deterred some potential participants from being interviewed as: (1) a few editors and journalists cited the current political moment as a reason for being apprehensive about participating in this study, though ultimately they agreed to be interviewed; and (2) most of the declines and no-responses in both groups came after the 2025 presidential inauguration.1
Table 1
Participant Demographics and Characteristics
Demographics & Characteristics | Journalists (n = 13) | Journal Editors (n = 10) |
|---|
Gender Identity | | |
|---|
Woman | 46% | 50% |
Man | 46% | 50% |
Non-Binary | 8% | 0% |
Race / Ethnicity | | |
Asian | 8% | 0% |
Black / African American | 8% | 0% |
Hispanic / Latino | 0% | 0% |
White | 46% | 90% |
Bi/Multiracial | 15% | 10% |
Other | 15% | 0% |
Prefer not to answer | 7% | 0% |
Age | | |
18–35 years old | 31% | 20% |
36–45 years old | 38% | 60% |
46–55 years old | 15% | 10% |
56–75 years old | 15% | 10% |
Educational Attainment | | |
College graduate (4-year) | 38% | 0% |
Advanced degree (Masters/PhD) | 62% | 100% |
Income (Annual Household) | | |
$50,000–$74,999 | 8% | 10% |
$75,000–$99,999 | 0% | 30% |
$100,000–$149,999 | 8% | 40% |
$150,000–$199,999 | 15% | 10% |
$200,000 or more | 38% | 10% |
Prefer not to answer | 23% | 0% |
Sexual Orientation | | |
Straight | 77% | 50% |
Gay | 0% | 20% |
Bisexual | 7.7% | 20% |
Other | 7.7% | 10% |
Prefer not to answer | 7.7% | 0% |
Political Views* | | |
Very Liberal | 23% | 40% |
Liberal | 46.2% | 50% |
Moderate | 0% | 10% |
Prefer not to answer | 30.7% | 0% |
Religiosity | | |
Not at all religious | 30.7% | 80% |
Not very religious | 38.4% | 10% |
Somewhat religious | 15.4% | 10% |
Very religious | 7.7% | 0% |
Living Environment | | |
Rural | 0% | 20% |
Urban | 92.3% | 80% |
Suburban | 7.7% | 0% |
*No participants in this sample identified as having Very Conservative or Conservative political views.
Themes Overview
Interviews with journal editors and journalists revealed complementary yet distinct perspectives on their respective professional roles and responsibilities in the communication of social and behavioral genomic (SBG) research to broader audiences. Both groups were keenly aware of the potential for SBG research to be misinterpreted and misused, leading to a shared sense of heightened responsibility and rigorous scrutiny prior to publishing through their respective platforms. However, their approaches were shaped by fundamentally different professional identities and obligations to their respective communities.
Journal editors perceived themselves as mediators who work with both researchers and reviewers to shape the scientific record. In contrast, media journalists saw themselves as translators with a primary obligation to shape public understanding of scientific research. This distinction culminated in a differential balancing of rigor vs. reach, concepts that seem to hold distinct meanings and priorities in their respective fields. Our findings are organized into three primary themes: (1) Heightened responsibility and scrutiny for SBG; (2) Mediating and translating scientific research; and (3) Balancing scientific rigor, public reach, and impact. Each of these themes encompasses perspectives of both journal editors and journalists, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence.
Theme 1: Heightened responsibility and scrutiny for SBG
Academic Journal Editors: “These ethical issues are large and complex”
Academic journal editors (AJE) were primarily focused on the scientific merit of paper submissions, and were quick to identify specific concerns regarding the publication of SBG research, including: inappropriate causal interpretations, oversimplification of complex behavioral traits, and lack of population diversity in genomic studies, among others. In addition to their focus on the scientific merit of SBG submissions, editors also raised complex ethical issues that can arise in the context of SBG, such as the use of health-focused biobank data to conduct SBG research, and were increasingly vigilant of the downstream implications of research publications on this topic, including the misrepresentation of findings in public discourse, and the potential to reinforce harmful stereotypes or discriminatory practices.
Editors’ recognition of SBG’s potential for harm translated directly into a shared conviction that SBG research demands of them an additional level of scrutiny. For editors, this meant going beyond the standard peer-review process to more deeply questioning the framing and interpretation of results within a manuscript, while also taking into consideration the potential social impacts of the research. Overall, there was consensus on the need for heightened sensitivity around figuring out whether an SBG paper should be sent out for review, and thus if it’s worthy of publication.
...the fact that we do need to take into account... not only scientific validity, but also social risk-benefit ratios, assessments, and the social responsibility aspects of research which are part of any Ethics framework for human participant research, but not articulated and not a matter of agreement for that matter... so we bring in Ethics reviewers frequently, we ask specific questions if we have specific areas of concern.
However, editors often expressed that they did not "consider [themselves] authorities on the ethical principles” and therefore did not feel fully equipped to address the complex ethical issues emerging from SBG research. Recognizing that these issues required specialized knowledge and additional expertise, professional editors discussed securing ethicists and “engaging people from the actual populations being studied” as reviewers to evaluate manuscripts–especially when they believed a paper could potentially be misused or misinterpreted. For instance, one editor noted that when manuscripts involve sensitive data, such as those derived from direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, they actively seek reviewers who can evaluate the ethical dimensions of the data used. The same editor articulated:
We are concerned about all these things but at the end of the day, you know, I think we rely on expert input and so, you know, we will send a paper up for review and we expect our reviewers to comment on, you know, is this is a sound piece of research, is this... not going to be misused or any way like that
Despite heightened awareness and scrutiny of SBG research, editors revealed that there are no established guidelines or formal infrastructure in place at their journals for the review or publication of ethically sensitive research such as SBG. Noting the lack of systematic ethical review processes for ethically sensitive research, editors recognized the need for ongoing dialogue with researchers to establish clear guidelines and processes. Because there is no “checklist or a flowchart” to go through, they discussed having to rely on their own judgement and the vigilance of reviewers during the editorial process. Multiple editors acknowledged that this ad hoc system depended on individual discretion, was compounded by the absence of formal training in ethics for editors, and resulted in a system that did not always catch potential areas of concern.
In the absence of established guidelines and ethical frameworks, editors approached SBG research in a collaborative manner, drawing on a broader network of expertise to inform their decisions. One editor felt that journals could “flag…for papers that are sensitive, etc., an extra step or an extra thought to prompt either authors or reviewers to think about that as well”. Another described an ongoing collaborative effort among editors, legal experts, ethics specialists, and communications professionals to develop guidelines addressing ethical gaps in the publication of ethically sensitive research.
While editors acknowledged that SBG research raises significant ethical concerns warranting additional guidance and expertise, they often distributed responsibility for addressing and mitigating the risks and harms associated with SBG research across the research ecosystem. According to these editors, responsibility starts with biobanks deciding the parameters of data collection and usage – including whether their data can be used for SBG studies. Responsibility then fell on researchers to conduct “responsible research", produce "scientific knowledge that they are justifying”, and take responsibility for how their research is subsequently used. In addition, researchers were perceived to be responsible for actively engaging with journalists and educating the public on their research once it had been published. In short, editors tended to frame ethical responsibility as a collective endeavor to ensure that SBG did not contribute to social harm: “I don’t know [that] it’s a single party’s responsibility but I think hopefully collectively…”.
Media Journalists: “This could be controversial but not just in the usual way.”
Like journal editors, media journalists (MJ) also saw themselves having heightened, additional roles when it came to SBG. Many distinguished SBG research from other, ostensibly less controversial kinds of research, for example, “research on black holes or whale acoustics” or research “going out in the rainforest and collecting snails and counting them”. They described SBG research as “contentious”, “fraught”, “sensitive”, “taboo”, “scandalous”, “controversial”, and at times “dangerous”, “politically charged”, and “uncomfortable”. Yet, these were the very same qualities that journalists felt made SBG “buzzy and prone to hype” and resulted in “tempting narratives” and “saleable stories”. Several journalists thought that SBG research is more likely to “make it into the mainstream…than other general genomics papers” and is a topic that will “never lack for coverage because people will always be interested in it”.
Journalists primarily viewed themselves as identifying relatable and interesting stories that will attract broad audiences and represent "some truth about what's happening in the world". When describing the process of identifying a story to cover, journalists talked about listening to their "story alarm" to find the "scoop" that would make them "the first to write about it". One journalist described their experience of the alarm going off when hearing about a particular downstream application of SBG research:
"… it was a fascinating technological process combined with an experience or a desire that… something like 80% of the public can relate to because about 80% of American adults have children. And then the rest of people also wonder to what extent who they are comes from their genes rather than their environment or their own will. And so, it had the combination of being able to inform people, enlighten people really, about the fact that this technology had already arrived, although it’s still very questionable and imperfect, and then also knowing that this was a topic that would just naturally interest a great many people."
Some journalists also described an alarm system for identifying topics, such as SBG, that may require them to take on additional roles and responsibilities. In other words, how journalists viewed SBG seemed to shape how many of them thought about their roles and responsibilities while reporting on it. One journalist, for example, shared that “what’s been misinterpreted before…kind of raises my flags for what will perhaps be misinterpreted again in the future” and described being more selective, choosing only to report on SBG studies that she considered to be “valid”, “urgent”, and “necessary.” In addition, another journalist shared that she exercises “greater caution” and thinks “much harder about…when is it the right time to tell this kind of story”; after one experience reporting on an SBG study, she said: “what I learned was that the waters were very deep… it kind of left me with a sense of ‘I’m keeping my distance from that topic’ honestly.”
Finally, journalists emphasized the need to be particularly careful and thoughtful when covering SBG specifically because of its potential for misuse and misinterpretation. As one journalist explained: “it is extremely clear why research like that can be harmful.” Phenotypes such as intelligence and sexual orientation were identified as especially prone to misuse and misinterpretation. For instance, when talking about some reporting that he’d done on an SBG study on same-sex sexual behavior, a journalist recalled feeling like “wow, this could be controversial but not just in the usual way…I don’t want to get canceled or something.” He went on to say “so I was like I need a sensitivity reading – are our articles insensitive in the headline?” As another example, another journalist said he was concerned about how genomic studies on intelligence could be used to try and explain racial groups differences and subsequently to make normative claims about inferiority and superiority. He worried that “the work that’s been done in this field is inching us down [a] road,” and that SBG “could have really drastic consequences for the fabric of society”.
In general, careful or more sensitive reporting of SBG was described as: (1) being particularly diligent about accuracy by, for instance, employing fact-checking (though science journalists considered fact-checking important for journalistic coverage broadly); (2) interviewing and including a wide range of sources, including critical ones, so as to capture a breadth of perspectives; (3) trying to pre-empt misconceptions by clearly explaining SBG’s methods and terms; (4) describing the limitations of SBG research and what claims can (and cannot) be made about it; (5) bringing into one’s writing the historical context, including the ugly history of genetics; and, in some cases, (6) letting scientists review their pieces prior to publication – though several journalists rejected this practice. A number of science journalists also stressed that background training in science is especially important for responsible coverage of SBG research.
Table 2 provides illustrative excerpts of theme 1 and how journal editors and journalists described their respective roles and responsibilities as it pertains to SBG.
Table 2
Theme 1: Heightened Responsibility & Scrutiny
Academic Journal Editors |
|---|
AJE P01 | “When we engage reviewers for a paper we of course are very concerned about the science, and we are very good at making sure we have the, you know, people to look at the technical details, but of course they may not…we don’t…they may not explicitly look at these ethical issues. And then we realized that... also these ethical issues are large and complex, and in fact, you know, they are in and of themselves a specific expertise that we require, and so I think that has led to this increasing trend of being for papers where we think it is a special concern that we do want someone specifically to look into it.” |
AJE P02 | “I think that practically the role of journals and editors is to, you know, make sure that the editorial process proceeds as thoroughly and that the communication process proceeds as responsibly as possible for stuff that they’re publishing.” |
AJE P03 | “Our job is there to answer questions and to kind of shepherd your paper through the publication process. It doesn’t always have a positive outcome but we’re here to help a paper become the best possible version. We are willing to kind of talk to authors about revisions, we’re not there to be arbiters. We’re there to kind of also make sure that the reviewer comments are relevant for a paper." |
AJE P05 | “In a way we follow the community, we observe what the community is doing and we react to it, on the other hand, I think it is also our privilege but also responsibility to enforce certain criteria of fairness, of equity, of transparency, reproducibility, and also, you know, so from that perspective as well I think we end up having a role of leadership in the community,... people follow our example by standards that we set. So, I would say we’re both followers and leaders, so a dual role…” |
Media Journalists |
MJ P02 | “Especially in a field which…has the risk of being buzzy and prone to hype, I think it can help to give everyone… extra tools to kind of understand this one very buzzy finding. And I think there’s probably some role in also contextualizing numbers and setting aside kind of misconceptions about what it means, which again, a [scientific] paper will do but sometimes won’t, and [media] covers will sometimes do, but sometimes won’t. Yeah. In theory, journalists can do all that.” |
MJ P08 | “If I’m being honest, sensitivity is partly about sort of reputation management– ‘we think this is a topic that we could get criticized for so we almost need to show our working if it comes to it’, show that we went through the hoops and did what we could to reduce offense that people might take…so it’s sensitive in the language that you have to use to make sure that you’ve reflected the nuance and the caveats.” |
MJ P11 | “I think you kind of have to go above and beyond to make sure that you’re accurate because if you’re kind of writing on a controversial topic it’s very likely that you will annoy either one or kind of both sides of an argument... Not to say that you would kind of avoid controversial topics, but you maybe have a higher bar, quality bar, for the kind of science that you would write about in a really controversial area because of the way it will be perceived.” |
MJ P12 | "I think where perhaps people feel more of a... strong urge around how to cover Social Genomics is because it is sometimes misused or misconstrued by the general public, especially for very eugenicist kind of rhetoric, and I think especially in a moment where we’re seeing a lot more of that, I think people…I at least feel like I wouldn’t want to report on a Social Genomics paper ... unless it’s sort of very clear where it stands, how valid it is, and …feels very urgent and necessary." |
Theme 2: Mediating versus translating scientific research
Academic Journal Editors: “We’re here to help a paper become the best possible version.”
Editors consistently conceptualized their role as that of a mediator between authors and reviewers who actively facilitates a fair review process while ensuring that research meets high scientific standards. As mediators, they navigate multiple functions – serving as “gatekeepers”, and/or “shepherds” – to manage the production and framing of scientific knowledge. As gatekeepers, editors hold the ultimate authority to accept or reject a manuscript for publication, a decision that profoundly shapes a field and the careers of its researchers. While some journal editors saw themselves as gatekeepers who shape what and how research gets published, others rejected the role of gatekeeper, calling gatekeeping “something we strive very strongly not do to”.
A gatekeeper merely grants or denies the entry of scientific research into the world of academic publishing. A shepherd, in contrast, actively guides and nurtures scientific work; this involves providing constructive feedback to improve a manuscript, ensuring its arguments are sound, and protecting the researcher and the scientific community from poor-quality research or misconduct. Editors described papers as something they “shepherd" through the editorial process. In the context of genomics research, editors acknowledged that peer reviewers might occasionally overlook important issues or lack the bandwidth to fully assess ethical or social implications. In such cases, they described taking on an added “developmental aspect” to their editorial role in which they conducted “sensitivity reads,” to advise authors on language and framing: “ ‘it’s not going to diminish your findings but you need to be realistic about this and not oversell the conclusions’ ”.
Although editorial norms don't guarantee offering multiple opportunities for revision, some editors also described giving authors multiple rounds of revisions and editorial support that often went beyond formal expectations to help bring manuscripts to publication. This ethos of support was illustrated by an editor who recounted:
"I try…my goal is to not send it back to the authors more than once, so you kind of get a one-shot deal. If you don’t fix it for that one shot, it’s done. However, I frequently break that rule and say, okay look, you’re close but you didn’t go far enough in this direction, and there’s one paper, unfortunately I thought it was a good paper and I wanted to see it published because I believed in it, and the author kind of made baby steps and I was like, no, keep going, keep going, and so eventually they got there and I believe the paper is out."
Additionally, editors emphasized that editorial decisions rarely happen in isolation, with most journals employing collaborative decision processes that weigh numerous factors beyond the immediate research findings, stating that the decisions they make are “complex and nuanced”. One editor explicitly stated that their journal does not allow unilateral decisions, explaining that "there's always at least one other editor that we talk to for every paper", though they acknowledged that this practice varies across publishers. Several editors described formal processes where manuscripts are shared with multiple editors for input before decisions are made, preventing individual editors from operating in a "silo” or “making editorial decisions in a bubble”. This practice was seen as a way to promote fairness and bring greater transparency to the editorial process. When publishing ethically sensitive research, a collaborative decision making process distributes responsibility across an editorial team – offering a process that may both protect SBG research from being unfairly rejected and better identify areas for potential misinterpretation or misuse that could be addressed editorially or by the authors.
This collaborative approach extended to handling disagreement among editors, with an editor explaining that when editors disagree about a paper's suitability, they defer to the more positive assessment. Similarly, when reviewers raised concerns, editors actively gauged the relevance and validity of reviewer comments to determine whether they warranted a response from the author before publication. Multiple editors described regular editorial meetings where broader issues are discussed, including monthly gatherings of the genetics and genomics community editors across their publishing family. Again, this collaboration was characterized as essential for maintaining consistency and fairness in editorial decisions.
Editors’ own experiences as scientists—past or present—appeared to foster a deeper understanding of the pressures researchers face, leading to more supportive and empathetic editorial practices. Many of them emphasized that although they may not be “active researchers,” they continue to engage with and use science every day. Editors' roles and responsibilities in the editorial process revealed that their primary obligation is to the researchers themselves and the broader scientific community. Editors described a responsibility to shield authors from potential abuses of reviewer power by overruling “unfair critiques” from peer reviewers and acting as “referees”.
Media Journalists: “Our job is to be really, really skeptical of the points scientists are making about their work.”
Where the editor’s identity is that of a mediator, the journalist’s is that of a translator. Journalists in this study consistently described their core function as translating the dense, technical, and often inaccessible language of science into a form that is clear, simple, engaging, and relatable for a non-expert public. After identifying a story, they saw it as their duty to convey it in an engaging and accessible manner by: (1) interviewing relevant parties–including ‘experts’ (broadly defined), scientists and their critics, consumers, and potential users; (2) avoiding academic jargon; and (3) repackaging scientific concepts and terminology so that they are more easily understood. As one journalist described, their job is to “unearth information and perspectives and viewpoints that are going to help add to a conversation”. Further, while some described themselves as interpreters whose responsibility is to “let the public know about things that we think they should know about”, others considered journalists to be “a mirror and translators” who are “always reflecting what people are saying”.
For several journalists, this act of translating also meant actively interrogating the science. A number felt that researchers may mistakenly believe that the role of a journalist is to “parrot what we learn from the sources we interview”. However, rather than acting as passive conduits of scientific knowledge, they viewed their role as connecting “non-expert readers to accurate, thoughtful explainers” that will help them “understand the science and what we can and cannot say”. Critically, this meant pushing “science coverage beyond ‘here’s a new study’” and instead being “skeptical of the points scientists are making about their work”; these latter two roles may shape the misperceptions that a number of journalists described researchers having of them. Some journalists felt that researchers can have the perception that they are out to get them and to make them look “stupid” or “wrong”. (Although one journalist, who worked as a long-form features writer saw himself in the fortunate enough position to not “have to give a shit” if a source “still likes me at the end of the piece” because he is a “generalist” reporter who may not cover a particular topic ever again).
According to those we interviewed, this interrogative stance is born from the journalist’s primary allegiance, which is not to the scientific community but to the public at large—their readership. They felt their core ethical obligation is to serve the public(s) and to provide their audience with information that is not only accurate and fair but also sufficiently contextualized. Some journalists noted this stance did not necessarily eliminate conflicting views of what their role ought to be, asking “are we watch dogs, are we advocates, are we sort of cheerleaders for science?”. However, at least one journalist acknowledged that science journalists have not always embraced the role of interrogator, describing a “long history of science journalism… promoting science.” She felt that only recently had her profession begun “to treat science as an institution with power, with influence, and hold it to account and, you know, interrogate its motivations and its politics.” This shift towards a “more critical lens”, she felt had, in part, been spurred by two things: (1) the COVID-19 pandemic and “the real missteps that were made, largely in communication and policies”; and (2) the growth of social media and the “visibility” it provides “into what an individual scientist’s motivations or perspectives might be.” That is, in her view, the COVID-19 pandemic brought into question the expertise of experts (“that sort of represented for the first time in my career this very stark, the people who you expect to be experts on this seem to be getting it wrong”), and scientists using social media to communicate challenged the idea that science is produced in a vacuum.
Table 3 provides illustrative excerpts contributing to theme 2 and how journal editors and journalists described their respective roles and responsibilities as it pertains mediating and translating scientific research.
Table 3
Theme 2: Mediating and Translating Scientific Research
Academic Journal Editors |
|---|
AJE P02 | "When I was a journal editor I still considered myself a scientist, I still felt like I thought like a scientist, I used my science every day, I engaged with the science, and I think that, you know, maybe that not always was, or people don’t think when they think of journal editors they don’t necessarily think that… they kind of think of them like paper pushers type of thing and not still active, you know, using their scientific brain I think." |
AJE P03 | "There are times, too, where particularly in genomics research where reviewers may not catch or may not have the bandwidth to necessarily check.… so sometimes we’ll also give these sensitivity reads over papers and make sure that things are being presented appropriately in the methods as well. So, there are parts where we’ll go to authors and say you’re trying to claim that you have this point from the study, just don’t say that, it’s not going to diminish your findings but you need to be realistic about this and not oversell the conclusions. So, there’s that kind of developmental aspect to the paper as well." |
AJE P09 | "That is a thing that we have to weigh and so really thinking about who’s doing this research, what resources are available to those folks, what resources are available based on what they’re studying, and trying not to compare apples and oranges just because the standard in one area is very high, it’s not necessarily the same kind of across the board. Which is hard, and I’m sure I don’t always get it right, but it’s, you know, there’s a lot of very different things that we look at and so we do try to keep that in mind." |
AJE P10 | “So as an editor, the people that you respond to are typically the authors or the reviewers, right, [laughter] those are the two groups of people that you’re interacting with you’re kind of mediating between… And that’s where your editorial judgement comes in.... so if a reviewer flags an issue that you think is particularly valid then you would either say, okay, this is an insurmountable problem and we need to reject the manuscript, or this is something that I will allow the authors to respond to... either in the manuscript or … a response to the reviewers’ framework where they can say, hey, maybe the reviewer misunderstood what we were doing so we’ve made X, Y, and Z changes to our manuscript, or perhaps, hey, the reviewer is wrong, here’s evidence to back it....” |
Media Journalists |
MJ P01 | " For pretty much anything that I cover, I want to tell some true story that represents some truth about what’s happening in the world, and I want to kind of unearth information and perspectives and viewpoints that are going to help add to a conversation about the thing. And I think that’s no different in this case. I mean for me I feel like I want to tell true stories about the work that’s being done in Genomics and what people think about, implications particularly in Social Genomics, and hopefully tell stores that kind of illuminate the topic or somehow add or enrich the conversation that people are having about it. " |
MJ P02 | “I think our job is to be really, really skeptical of the points scientists are making about their work, almost always…we are not peer review by any means, but I do think that … we can play the kind of complementary role to peer review in really pushing on questions and kind of bring certain debates into the light more clearly and surfacing critical perspectives that maybe didn’t get put on a paper when it was in review, or things that can’t…you know, concerns that arose after a paper was published.” |
MJ P04 | “Journalists are, I mean we are like a mirror and translators. These studies come along and we write about them in a way that makes them accessible to the public, and we also get reaction to them. Sometimes that’s on the science, is it sound science, and sometimes it’s more the ethical side should they have looked for a homosexuality gene or genes in a GWAS study, but we’re always reflecting what people are saying.” |
MJ P10 | “I hope that we can … help people feel empowered in an accessible way when they hit these topics… we are also meant I think to ask questions, to ask both sort of the naïve questions that help us kind of explain things for a general audience, but also analytical questions, critical questions, ask people to respond to critiques from others in the field, ask people to explain things that seem like real limitations, ask people to wrestle with…it’s not just PR, in other words, it really has to be a bit of an interrogation sometimes.” |
Theme 3: Balancing Rigor, Reach, and Impact
Academic Journal Editors: “If they have a sound hypothesis and a sound methodology … I’m obligated to support its publication.”
The notion of rigor emerged as a latent theme in descriptions of the editorial role, which consistently reflected a commitment to maintaining high scientific standards – particularly around methodological soundness and the peer review process. As mentioned previously, many of the journal editors characterized their role as “gatekeepers” of scientific quality and impact. This role involved selecting papers that were not only scientifically sound, but also likely to significantly influence the scientific landscape, evaluating the potential strengths and weaknesses of submissions, making determinations about which papers warrant peer review, and flagging areas of potential concerns for reviewers.
However, editors recognized that increasing rigor in the editorial process, while aimed at ensuring quality, raises the threshold for publication and can unintentionally exclude researchers with limited resources from the publishing landscape. Recognizing the potential trade-offs between accessibility and thoroughness, editors described a difficult balancing act between creating additional obstacles to submission that make it more difficult for more authors to “just have their paper considered” and while maintaining quality control and enforcing rigorous ethical standards. One editor described their efforts to move beyond a focus on methodological standards to support inclusion of underrepresented populations in the scientific discourse:
"I tend to, well, look at it methodologically if possible, but also with some considerations, for example, I recently sent out for review a study that was in a small sample, in a very small sample, but it was a sample of participants from Hispanic background, and so I thought that although the sample was very small and maybe the measures were not up to the best of standards maybe because there is a lack of representation in the sociogenomic world, maybe, you know, this paper would at least deserve a chance. In the end, the reviewers found too many issues and we couldn’t proceed, and this kind of raises also, you know, these are broader issues, right, you know, lack of training, lack of, you know, how to empower this type of research in groups that are non-white, or, you know, of different ancestry, because there’s often a lack of infrastructure, lack of training…"
Editors acknowledged that a lack of diversity within editorial boards themselves was a significant limitation to fairness and accessibility in publishing, with some editors acknowledging that current editorial structures may inadvertently reinforce existing inequities. However, as illustrated by several editors, there are broader structural limitations – such as disparities in research infrastructure and lack of diversity in SBG data – that constrain editors' ability to weigh considerations beyond technical rigor in order to champion research that amplifies the perspectives of underrepresented communities. Editors emphasized that these systemic issues begin well before manuscripts reach journals and cannot be fully addressed through editorial processes alone.
Editors articulated a strong commitment to publishing work that advances scientific knowledge and benefits society. However, they perceived themselves as having limited influence over how research is communicated and interpreted beyond publication for SBG research. As one editor described, press releases were managed by the institutional press officers, which were the primary intermediaries with journalists. They believed they had little control over the media narrative or how universities or institutions frame their findings in their press releases. Another editor admitted, “I don’t know that I actively do anything to amplify an author’s message”, underscoring a passive role in post-publication communication of SBG. Here too editors described the process as being “very led by experts”, suggesting they rely heavily on the input of authors and reviewers, rather than shaping the message themselves.
Media Journalists: “An imbalance between rigor and reach”
For journalists, rigor entails a commitment to journalistic accuracy, thorough fact-checking, corroborating sources, and presenting information in a clear manner. Rather than methodological precision in the scientific sense, rigor in journalism is about responsibly verifying information and representing multiple perspectives – especially when reporting on complex and controversial topics like SBG research. A few journalists described that their work and the rigor with which they fact-check paralleled that of scientists:
“we kind of approach journalism with the same rigor–I like to think the same rigor–that a scientist would approach their science” and "in both cases [science and journalism], you're meant to be unbiased, you're meant to be learning about the world around you."
Science journalists in particular emphasized that the media should not be viewed as a monolith; they often delineated between different ‘types’ of journalists when describing their roles and responsibilities. This same group of journalists lamented the fact that other segments of the journalistic world, like popular media outlets, do not routinely fact-check and may instead “encourage you to go as far as you possibly could with a realistically low risk of being sued” simply because it can attract a larger audience. The stakes for this type of salacious or sensationalized reporting may be particularly high in the domain of SBG, where findings often touch on socially charged topics such as educational attainment, intelligence, sexual orientation, and misrepresentation can amplify stigma, reinforce social biases, and contribute to real-world harm. For these journalists, it was discouraging to see stories about science that they felt were: (1) oversimplified and lacked nuance; (2) hadn’t interviewed people with relevant lived experiences; and/or (3) simply restated scientists’ claims without critiquing them. As one journalist noted, there is “an imbalance between rigor and reach” with those outlets that have a bigger reach being less rigorous in their reporting.
While science journalists stressed the importance of accuracy in their reporting, more popular media journalists felt that it would be “disingenuous” for journalists to deny that one of their key goals is to write a story that will attract a lot of attention, explaining: “all journalists care about clicks now… it feels good to get a lot of clicks!” In journalism “there’s so much competition for people’s attention,” and capturing the attention of readers is part of the job because it keeps one employed. The inherently provocative nature of SBG research therefore makes it particularly effective at capturing and keeping the public interest and getting "clicks". Interestingly, journalists noted that they often do not have final control over the headline attached to their stories – a space where hyperbole or overstated claims are curated to capture clicks and drive engagement:
“It’s hard because I didn’t have control over the headline, for example, or like [Media Outlet] which partnered with us on that did their own headline, I remember being like, ughhh!"
Many journalists described themselves as looking to make an impact with their writing by, for instance, helping readers to understand how a topic may “impact them or someone they love”, or by “contributing to public education” and “writing something that influences policy and “gets cited by Congress”. A few explained that the way they make an impact is by bringing attention to a topic that others could then act upon. For example, one journalist felt that her reporting “could then be picked up by someone else to actually make a difference.” Another journalist did not think that as a journalist he could make direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies “be transparent about what they’re doing.” However, he did feel that he had the ability to make the public and government watchdogs “understand what’s happening” and “be aware,” which could spur them to take action.
Table 4 provides illustrative excerpts contributing to theme 3 and how journal editors and journalists described their respective roles and responsibilities as it pertains to balancing rigor, reach, and impact.
Table 4
Theme 3: Balancing Rigor, Reach, and Impact
Academic Journal Editors |
|---|
AJE P01 | “We want the papers to be published to improve human existence at a high level, I guess, that’s why we are doing all of these things, that’s why we’re studying all of these things fundamentally, that’s why we are in this area. And at the end of the day I guess... we’re publishing these papers with the hope that, you know, somewhere down the line, probably not directly as a result of the paper that we publish, but somewhere down the line this is going to positively impact peoples’ lives in whatever area that that, you know, paper is researching.” |
AJE P04 | I believe that one way in which scientific journals can help [SBG] have a positive impact is by broadening the consideration process, the evaluation process, and implementing a lot of checks and balances in order to make sure that it is not politics that’s driving editorial decisions, because editorial decisions determinate what ultimately will be published or not versus balancing whether the research can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, misused, or making judgements whether it should not have happened at all… We may all think that we’re in this to do good, but we may end up doing harm, so relying on more than the standard editorial processes for research that is highly societally relevant I think can be particularly helpful for ensuring that we do not inappropriately limit what the domain of scientific inquiry is while at the same time doing what is possible to minimize the potential harm. |
AJE P06 | “I believe the role of the reviewer and the editor is to make sure that it’s a sound scientific contribution, it’s not overinterpreted, it’s not hyped, I don’t like the idea of filtering science, which I think is becoming more common... think it’s a big mistake in the long run... I hate when people hype the results… I always thought that, you know, no matter what they’re saying, that they should stick to interpreting what they found and not overinterpret it. But I thought if they have a sound hypothesis and a sound methodology, and it’s clearly reported, I think as an editor I’m obligated to support its publication.” |
AJE P07 | “I tend to, well, look at it methodologically if possible, but also with some considerations, for example, I recently sent out for review a study that was in a small sample, in a very small sample, but it was a sample of participants from Hispanic background, and so I thought that although the sample was very small and maybe the measures were not up to the best of standards maybe because there is a lack of representation in the sociogenomic world, maybe, you know, this paper would at least deserve a chance. In the end, the reviewers found too many issues and we couldn’t proceed, and this kind of raises also, you know, these are broader issues, right, you know, lack of training, lack of, you know, how to empower this type of research in groups that are non-white, or, you know, of different ancestry, because there’s often a lack of infrastructure, lack of training...” |
AJE P09 | "I do think it’s important ... even if it’s methodologically sound, maybe it’s not worth publishing in X journal if it’s not going to give us that much and it also can be used for harm….at least in SBG… look and read what people are saying about this and really sort of coming to terms with…. I would hope it would…there’s sort of an, ah, this is controversial so we should pursue it because people will be interested in the results, and it’s like maybe sometimes no. Maybe sometimes steering away from a controversial topic is better when the controversy results in harms. Again, if it’s sort of like, oh, there’s a fight between two groups about something going on in yeast, sure, go for it, lean into the controversy, have fun there! But yeah, it just takes a little bit more consideration. " |
Media Journalists |
MJ P05 | “I’m motivated just by a scoop basically. Just by the scoop. Something new to do with technology. Here’s this technology that’s going to be talked about, have an impact, and my goal is just to be the first to write about it. That’s pretty much it.” |
MJ P08 | “My own view is that I just want to write stuff that people would want to read, and people want to read stuff, which is going to have an impact, but I don’t have that…I don’t want to take the credit for changing it, I suppose, what I want to do is give people the tools and the information they need to go out and make those changes themselves. So, I guess I see my role of a journalist as quite hands-off” |
MJ P09 | “Some people who work on really controversial studies will put a lot of pressure on the journalists who cover it to basically let them review the content before it’s published. As a journalist I hate when scientists do this because I feel like it’s really overstepping and it’s really sort of putting their hands in things they shouldn’t be, you know, that’s not how an independent press works, you can’t control what they say. But I think for something like this, some journalists probably would let the scientists read the article to make sure that it is accurate, especially because it is so potentially dangerous. And so that might actually…this actually might be a situation where it’s appropriate to have sort of scientific review of the article.” |
MJP10 | “I hope that we can both connect our readers, particularly our non-expert readers, to accurate, thoughtful explainers in a sense, help people understand the science and what we can and cannot say, helping people sort of understand some of these concepts, and in an ideal case doing it without a ton of academic language, right, to help people feel empowered in an accessible way when they hit these topics." |
MJ P13 | “It is often true that…you almost can’t prevent misinterpretation all the time because it’s almost like predicting how other people think, and I think you can in some senses but people will always surprise you, and what gets…I think everyone is frequently surprised by I think the things that get picked up outside of maybe the mainstream media…I think you could spend your whole life trying to prevent misinterpretation and not be successful.” |
- However, it is worth noting that when participants provided reasons for declining, they most often cited time constraints. Journalists were more likely to not respond to interview invitations than to decline. In comparison, journal editors were more likely to decline than to not respond. Additionally, the decline/no-response rate was higher for journal editors than for journalists.