Verifying publication accuracy of research findings: Check if quoted numbers match the original study’s group, period and unit.; Compare published wording with source text to detect misleading context changes.; Use the original study version at time of publication, not later updates.
Image: Brand Reach

Mention Monitoring

Part of Brand mention monitoring

Checking whether a publication quoted a finding accurately

Compare a published finding with its source, including the group, period, denominator, attribution and context.

Outreach Desk · · 2 min read

Compare the published wording with the source finding and the material behind it. Check both the figure or quotation and the meaning created by its context. An exact number can still mislead if the publication changes the group, period or strength of the conclusion.

Put the versions side by side

Keep the article’s headline, relevant passage, date and page address beside the study, table or statement version available when the article appeared. If the source changed later, distinguish that earlier version from the current one.

For a direct quotation, compare the words with the approved written statement or a reliable record of what was said. For a paraphrase, check whether it conveys the same claim without presenting it as verbatim.

Check what defines the finding

Identify the measured group, place and period; the value, unit and denominator; the comparison; and any condition that changes the result’s meaning. Examine the verb too. “Reported”, “was associated with”, “increased” and “caused” make different claims. Responses from participating customers, for example, cannot simply be described as measured behaviour of all Australians.

Read the headline and social preview as well as the body. A qualification in the body may be absent from a standalone headline. Locate the particular wording at issue rather than labelling the entire article inaccurate.

Common misrepresentations in quoting research findings

  • Misattributed findingClaiming a result from one study was from another; e.g., attributing a CSU study to ANU
  • Changed group or populationReporting results for 'Australian adults' when the study covered only 'urban university students'
  • Omitted condition or qualifierRemoving 'within a margin of error' or 'under controlled conditions' from a conclusion
  • Misleading verb choiceUsing 'caused' instead of 'associated with' when causation cannot be proven

Record the decision

Mark a point accurate, needs clarification, factual error or unresolved, with the source passage supporting that decision. A different but fair emphasis is an editorial choice. A changed number, wrong attribution or omitted condition that materially broadens a finding warrants a specific accuracy check.

If the underlying company research is wrong, identify that source problem and the version the publication received before attributing the error to the publication. Have the research owner check any calculation and the proposed correction before contacting an editor. The audit should show the published wording, relevant source version and reason the meanings do or do not match.

Key indicators of accurate reporting in research coverage

Correct attribution
Source named accurately with proper authorship or institution
Full context preserved
All key conditions, limitations, and scope included in summary
No altered numbers
Percentages, totals, and denominators unchanged from source
Verbs reflect evidence level
Use of 'suggests' or 'correlates' where causation is not supported

More from Mention Monitoring

Mention Monitoring

Brand mention monitoring

Set up a practical brand mention monitoring process, verify published items and decide when a factual response is needed.

Outreach Desk · · 4 min read