Corrections & Fact-Checking

1. The editorial process

My working approach is:

Read → Understand → Verify → Attribute → Write → Review → Publish

Each stage serves a purpose. This sequence describes my editorial approach; the checks required depend on the subject, the evidence available and the potential consequences of an error.

Read

Where possible, I examine original material rather than relying solely on summaries, press releases, headlines or social-media posts.

For medical research, this may mean reviewing the published study, clinical trial record, research abstract, supplementary material or relevant regulatory documentation.

When the original material is unavailable, I consider what reliable sources are accessible and whether the available evidence is sufficient to support publication.

Understand

Before explaining a scientific or medical development, I seek to establish:

• What was actually studied.
• Who or what was studied.
• How the research was conducted.
• What the researchers found.
• What the findings do not establish.
• What limitations could affect the interpretation.
• Whether the article or announcement accurately reflects the underlying evidence.

Verify

I check factual claims against sources appropriate to the subject. Depending on the story, these may include original research, peer-reviewed studies, official government data, regulatory authorities, international health organisations, universities, research institutions, official records and credible original reporting.

No single source is automatically sufficient for every claim. The verification required depends on the nature of the claim, the reliability of the source and the consequences of getting it wrong.

Attribute

I identify where information originated and distinguish between my own reporting, findings from researchers, statements from institutions and reporting published by other journalists.

Where information comes from an external publication or original reporter, I seek to acknowledge that source appropriately. I do not present another journalist's original reporting as my own.

Review

Before publication, I assess whether the article's claims, quotations, figures, headline and conclusions are supported by the available evidence.

I pay particular attention to details that could materially change the meaning of a story, especially medical claims, statistics, dates, study findings and statements attributed to individuals or institutions.

2. Research must be understood in context

Scientific findings can be misrepresented even when individual facts are technically correct. Context matters.

I pay particular attention to distinctions such as:

• Laboratory research versus research involving humans.
• Animal studies versus human clinical studies.
• Observational studies versus randomised controlled trials.
• Association versus causation.
• Preliminary findings versus established evidence.
• Statistical significance versus clinical significance.
• Relative risk reduction versus absolute risk reduction.
• Research results versus regulatory approval or established clinical practice.

I also consider the size and design of a study, its limitations, the population studied and whether the conclusions are supported by the results.

A promising result is not automatically a proven treatment. A study involving a small group of participants does not necessarily establish effectiveness across a wider population. A press release's interpretation of a study does not replace examination of the available evidence.

My reporting should reflect what the evidence supports, not what would make the story more dramatic.

3. Sources and expertise

Experts can help explain complex research, interpret findings and provide context. However, expertise does not eliminate the need for verification.

Where expert commentary is used, I consider relevant qualifications, experience, institutional affiliations and potential conflicts of interest.

I distinguish between an expert's interpretation and established findings. I also consider whether a source has direct knowledge of the issue being discussed.

When a material claim requires clarification or a response from a relevant institution or individual, I may seek comment from the appropriate source. Where such contact is material to the story, I aim to represent the response fairly and distinguish a response received from a request that remains unanswered.

I do not invent expert opinions, interviews, quotations or institutional responses.

4. Official statements and press releases

Official statements, press releases and institutional announcements can be valuable sources of information, but they are not automatically conclusive evidence.

I assess what the announcement establishes, what evidence it provides and whether its claims require further verification.

Where an institution describes a development as a breakthrough, a first, a major advance or a success, I seek to establish whether the available evidence supports that description.

I distinguish between what an organisation says, what the underlying evidence shows and what remains uncertain.

5. Statistics and numerical claims

Numbers can be misleading when their definitions, time periods, denominators or limitations are omitted.

When reporting statistics, I seek to verify the original source and understand what the figures measure, the population they cover and the period to which they apply.

Where relevant, I distinguish estimates from confirmed counts, projections from observed outcomes and percentages from absolute numbers.

I do not knowingly change a figure's meaning through selective presentation, misleading comparisons or the removal of important context.

If a statistic cannot be traced to a sufficiently reliable source, I assess whether it can responsibly be used, qualified or should be omitted.

6. Breaking news and developing claims

Breaking health news may emerge before all relevant details are available.

In such situations, I distinguish confirmed information from preliminary reports, attributed claims and details that remain under verification.

I identify uncertainty where it matters and update stories when material new information becomes available.

Speed does not justify presenting an unconfirmed claim as established fact. If the available evidence is insufficient, I may wait for confirmation, narrow the claim or explain what remains unknown.

7. Viral claims and misinformation

Virality is not verification.

A claim repeated across social media does not become more reliable because it has attracted attention or been shared by prominent accounts.

When examining a viral health claim, I seek to identify its origin, check the evidence it relies on and assess whether it accurately represents the available facts.

I distinguish between demonstrably false claims, unsupported claims, misleading interpretations and questions that remain unresolved. I do not label a claim false merely because evidence is incomplete, nor describe a claim as established simply because it has not been disproved.

8. AI-assisted fact-checking

AI tools may assist with research organisation, document analysis, identifying claims that require checking and reviewing drafts for possible inconsistencies.

However, AI-generated information is not treated as proof, and AI-assisted fact-checking is not infallible.

AI systems can misinterpret research, invent references, omit qualifications and produce inaccurate conclusions. Where AI identifies a source or makes a factual claim, I seek to check it against the original material or another appropriate reliable source before relying on it.

AI does not replace source verification or editorial judgment. I remain responsible for the accuracy and attribution of the material I publish.

Further information is available in the AI Policy.

Accuracy includes what happens after publication

I aim to publish accurate journalism, but errors can occur despite reasonable efforts to verify information.

When I identify a material factual error, I seek to correct it promptly and transparently. I do not defend a known error simply because it has already been published.

Accountability requires assessing the evidence, determining what was wrong and taking appropriate action.

What may warrant a correction?

Corrections may be necessary for material errors involving:

• Names, titles or identities.
• Dates, locations or timelines.
• Figures, statistics or numerical comparisons.
• Medical findings or descriptions of research.
• Quotations or statements attributed to individuals.
• Sources, attribution or institutional affiliations.
• Descriptions of events or public-health developments.
• Claims about medicines, vaccines, treatments or medical risks.
• Other factual details that materially affect a reader's understanding.

Not every editorial preference or minor wording change amounts to a factual correction. The appropriate response depends on the nature and significance of the issue.

Corrections, updates and clarifications

These terms describe different editorial actions.

Correction: Addresses information that was published inaccurately or incorrectly. For a material error, I aim to identify the correction and explain what has changed.

Update: Adds new verified information or developments that became available after the original publication. An update does not necessarily mean the original article was wrong.

Clarification: Makes wording or context clearer where the original presentation could reasonably have caused misunderstanding, even if the underlying facts were not necessarily incorrect.

Where appropriate, I distinguish these actions so readers can understand why an article has changed.

How significant errors are handled

When a material error is confirmed, I aim to correct the article and provide a correction notice explaining the issue and the change made.

Where an error substantially undermines a story, further action may be necessary. Depending on the circumstances, this may include a prominent correction, substantial revision, withdrawal of the article or a notice explaining why it is no longer available.

The response should be proportionate to the seriousness of the error and the risk of continued misunderstanding.

I do not promise that every correction will take the same form. I commit to assessing identified errors and taking appropriate action based on the available evidence.

Corrections to developing stories

An article may be accurate based on the information available at the time of publication and later require an update as events develop.

However, new information does not automatically excuse an earlier factual error. If the original article contained a material inaccuracy, I assess whether a correction is warranted in addition to any update.

Where a significant change affects the meaning of a story, readers should not be left with a misleading impression of what was originally reported.

Readers are encouraged to report potential factual errors, misleading claims or problems with source attribution.

Send correction requests to:

contact@josephmmwa.com

Where possible, include:

• The article's headline or URL.
• The specific statement or passage in question.
• An explanation of why it may be inaccurate or misleading.
• Supporting evidence, such as an original research paper, official record or relevant source.

Providing supporting evidence can help me assess the concern more efficiently.

I review correction requests against the available evidence and editorial standards. A request does not automatically establish that an error occurred or guarantee a change, but credible concerns deserve consideration.

Where further information is necessary, I may seek clarification before deciding what action is appropriate.

I believe trust is strengthened when readers can understand how information was assessed and when mistakes are acknowledged.

I aim to make corrections clear enough for readers to understand what changed and why. I also seek to preserve the distinction between an error, a legitimate update and a change in scientific understanding.

A correction is not proof that all journalism has failed. Refusing to address a known material error undermines accountability.

When evidence shows that a report was wrong, I will seek to correct the record rather than defend the original claim without justification.

Before publication, I ask:

• What evidence supports this claim?
• Have I checked the original source where possible?
• Does the evidence justify the wording of the article and headline?
• Have I understood the research and its limitations?
• Have I attributed information fairly?
• Have I communicated uncertainty honestly?
• Would a reader be able to trace important claims to their supporting sources?

After publication, I ask a related question:

If credible evidence shows that something is wrong, am I prepared to correct it clearly and promptly?

These questions guide my approach to fact-checking and corrections at JOSEPH MMWA.

The objective is not to claim that errors are impossible. It is to make evidence central to publication, treat readers fairly and take responsibility when the record needs to be corrected.