Seven principles for good research communication

When research is communicated, the content must be accurate and provide the target audience with a true and fair understanding of the relevant factual circumstances, both in the results themselves and in the research behind them.

• We only share studies once they have been published in a scientific journal. Our text is based on the published manuscript.
• We ensure that the framing reflects the main conclusion and does not go beyond what the research itself supports.
• Researchers always approve the text, including the headline, quotes and fact boxes, before publication.
• If there is any uncertainty about how results or methods should be communicated, we involve relevant specialists, such as statisticians or methodological experts.

Research communication should include all aspects that may reasonably be considered relevant to the recipient’s understanding of the research results. Relevant information, for example about the significance of the results, their scale and their wider context, helps present the full picture of the research and its importance, and should be included as far as possible. Wherever possible, reference should be made to the underlying research publications and, where relevant, to other research as well.

• We select research that contributes new and important knowledge of significance to people and society.
• The journalistic assessment of target audience, framing and relevance is central. Stories must be able to answer why the results matter and what difference they may make. A null result is also a result.
• We prioritise thoroughness and credibility over speed, and we always refer to the original publication.

Research communication should make clear which methods and assumptions research results and assessments are based on, and the uncertainties associated with these. Scientific results always involve varying degrees of uncertainty linked to the methods used, the research design, the data or the underlying theoretical assumptions. It should be made clear what these uncertainties mean for a research result or any other aspect being communicated.

• When communicating research, we ask about methods, data and limitations so that uncertainties are presented clearly and understandably.
• We help researchers explain what these caveats mean for how the results should be read, and we strive to ensure that our communication is professional, objective and neutral, without overstating conclusions.

Research communication should explain the status of the research within the relevant scientific community. Do the results have broad support in the scientific community, or do they differ from the general consensus in the field? Are they preliminary findings, or have they been published through scientific channels, and what is the status of those channels?

• We always state where and how the results have been published, and wherever possible we place the study in the context of other research in the field, so that readers gain a realistic understanding of how the results relate to existing knowledge.
• We use a standard template for linking to the study.

Research communication should make it clear who is the source of the knowledge being communicated. Researchers often communicate knowledge that originates from other parts of the research community – in other words, knowledge they have not produced themselves. Passing this knowledge on to society is an important part of research communication, but the origin of that knowledge should be clear, just as it is in research itself.

• In most cases, we produce research communication in connection with new publications by SDU researchers. Here, SDU researchers speak about their own research, while also relating it to existing knowledge in the field.
• In cases where the communication is not based on new research studies, we make sure it is clear when researchers are speaking about their own research and when they are referring to the research of others.
• We always include a Meet the researcher fact box with contact details for the SDU researchers featured in the article.
• Information about funding and any collaborations is included as a standard part of the communication.

Researchers have both the right and the duty to engage in public debate with perspectives of an ethical, political or scientific nature. It should be clear, however, whether a perspective falls within the researcher’s own area of expertise, is based on the researcher’s general knowledge of a broader field, or reflects a view that is not directly related to their research area.

• In our communication, we aim to make it clear whether a perspective falls within the researcher’s area of expertise, is based on broader professional knowledge, or reflects a more personal view not directly linked to the research area.
• We make a point of asking our researchers: What is that based on?

Research communication should describe all circumstances that may give rise to conflicts of interest in relation to the research or the individual researcher. This may include, but is not limited to, matters such as research funding, patent applications, royalties, collaboration with companies and similar issues.

• We always ask researchers to disclose funding and any conflicts of interest so that these can be described openly and transparently. The aim is to strengthen trust in the research and give readers a clear basis for assessing the results.
• Openness about collaborations and financial arrangements is a natural part of responsible research communication.
• We include this in the About the study fact box, which is a standard element of our research communication.