Science Reader is committed to producing accurate, transparent, and trustworthy science content. This page describes our editorial standards: how we work, how we use AI, and what you can expect from us.
How we create content
Every article on Science Reader follows a structured editorial workflow designed specifically for AI-assisted content creation. Our process typically involves ten steps: source selection, research, editorial pitch, drafting, fact-checking, editorial review, final draft, image creation, SEO optimization, and WordPress preparation (desking).
All editorial decisions are made by Tormod Guldvog, the 'human in the loop'. The AI serves as a writing and research assistant - it does not publish independently or make editorial judgments about what stories to cover or how to frame them.
AI disclosure
Science Reader uses Claude (by Anthropic) as an AI editorial assistant. We are transparent about this: AI is involved in researching, drafting, and structuring our articles. However, every article is guided, reviewed, edited, and approved by a human editor with over 30 years of science communication experience.
We use custom AI personas and our own style guide to ensure that AI-generated text meets our editorial standards for voice, accuracy, and readability. We do not use AI to fabricate quotes, invent sources, or generate content without editorial oversight - all our content goes through thorough checks.
Fact-checking process
We take factual accuracy seriously. Our fact-checking process has four stages:
- Source control: We evaluate whether sources are trustworthy before using them. We prioritize peer-reviewed research, established science publications, and recognized experts.
- Initial fact check: The first draft undergoes a fact check against its source material.
- Epistemic check: We verify that information is presented with appropriate confidence levels - distinguishing between established facts, preliminary findings, and speculation.
- Independent verification: Before publication, we run a specialized fact check using a process involving Claude and an independent AI model (Perplexity Sonar Pro Search) to cross-reference all claims against external sources, and to extract, flag, validate and fix claims. The result is displayed on the article as either green (verified) or yellow (needs attention). Yellow articles are usually unpublished until the claim can be verified or removed.
Articles published before our fact-checking system was implemented may not have a visible fact-check badge.
Source selection
We select sources based on credibility, relevance, and recency. Our preferred sources include:
- Peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers (with appropriate caveats for preprints)
- Established science publications (Nature, Science, Quanta Magazine, New Scientist, etc.)
- University press releases and institutional communications
- Lectures and presentations by recognized researchers (Royal Institution, TED, university channels)
- Science communicators with demonstrated expertise (PBS Space Time, Sabine Hossenfelder, etc.)
We avoid content mills, unverified social media claims, and sources without clear attribution.
Corrections policy
If we discover an error in a published article, we correct it promptly. Significant corrections are noted in the article with a correction notice. Minor corrections (typos, formatting) are made without notice.
If you believe we have published inaccurate information, please contact us. We take all correction requests seriously and will investigate promptly.
Editorial independence
Science Reader is an independent publication. We are not funded by any research institution, corporation, or advocacy group. Our editorial decisions are not influenced by advertisers or sponsors. We cover science because we believe it matters, not because someone pays us to.
Content types
Science Reader publishes several types of content, each with its own editorial approach:
- Science Explorers: Deep feature articles based on original research or significant scientific developments. These undergo full research, drafting, and fact-checking.
- Science Trackers: Lighter synthesis articles in a "5 Things to Know" format, covering current science trends and developments.
- Science Reviews: Commentary and analysis of specific works - videos, books, podcasts, or articles - with added research context and perspective.
- Glossary entries: Clear, accessible definitions of scientific and technical terms.
About the editor
Key figure
30+
years of experience with science communication
Science Reader is created and edited by Tormod Guldvog, a science communicator based in Oslo, Norway. He has reviewed or discussed around 100 popular science books on NRK Radio, founded the science website Hypography (1998-2013), served as web editor for the Norwegian Space Centre, and has over 30 years of experience in science communication and web publishing.
Today Tormod works as a strategy advisor for a global consultancy, advising clients (mostly government and corporations) on strategies for implementing, governing and getting ROI from generative AI.
Contact
Questions about our editorial standards or a correction request? Contact us through our contact page or reach out on LinkedIn.
