Often the biggest lift for the writer is explaining why a study/paper is important or interesting at all. The reader rarely has knowledge of past work, trends in the field or what is even standard for some subgenre of research. Start broad and try to give lots of context first 1/

Technical language and process details are really hard. Stories have to include a section that describes what was done but expect that section to be simplified and shortened or to rely on analogy. Most words that need to be defined for the reader typically get edited out 2/

This varies, but it's probably better to assume that the writer doesn't have 1000s of words and will have to leave out really interesting parts of your interview in favor of other really interesting parts. It's never personal 3/

Word counts are often set by editors. Behind every writer there is an editor that has ideas about how long a story will be and what rough angle it should take. You talk to the writer but the writer is not the be all end all on what will be published 4/

Magazine editors are different from editors in peer reviewed journals bc they make more serious changes, from adjusting language to shuffling paragraph order to cutting quotes. If you see parts of a draft, the published version that's gone through editing will likely differ 5/

More often than not writers will not show you a full draft of a piece and may just double-check quotes or excerpts with you before sending a draft to their editor. This is not personal, just a matter of journalistic integrity 6/

Most places do some sort of a fact-check but writers also almost always ask for independent opinions on papers they are reporting on. Especially if an article is more than a couple hundred words, another scientist will be asked to comment on it. 7/

Writers have to learn abt research, the context of the research and how to talk abt that research at a v accessible level and then turn that into a limited number of words and negotiate language and article structure w editors. This can take a second so patience is good 8/

On the flipside, news and embargoed stories have to be turned around quickly so being willing to find time for an interview on a short notice is something writers value immensely 9/

It's always ok to ask how long a story will be or who the magazine's targeted audience is. Different publications will get your different kinds of exposure and writers often work with a specific type of person and a specific format in mind 10/

Titles and blurbs for articles are often not fully up to the writer and get set during the editing process. There's a lot that goes into titles (including SEO stuff I don't understand) so the article about your paper may not have a title all that similar to the paper's title 11/

Please chip in on what I've missed! I've written a fair amount and for some amazing publications in the last few years since I stopped doing research, but I still have way less experience than any real, seasoned pro so there's likely more that could be said

@Ironmely Scientists are not trained to give the headline first, then back it up with the evidence. But if you leave it up to the reporter to summarize, you might not agree with how they do it. Better to spend time beforehand coming up with takeaways.

@Ironmely Great thread! Calling @astrobetter!

@Ironmely None but a select few who evolve into scientists who leave research and specialize in media.

@Ironmely "How few"?! Didn't realize any of us got any media training at all, except in the act. Thx for your good tips; I hope I've mostly figured them out myself by now, but really wish all researchers would hear them early&often.

@Ironmely If i had five dollar for every time I thought about you i would have 0 dollars😑🖕🏿

@Ironmely @kathrinkuehnk Useful hints… @threaderapp unroll please

@Ironmely Very interesting field

@Ironmely @OzdDerya https://x.com/vera_tenacious/s...

@Ironmely Shut the fuck up bitch