These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate Science Feedback a pro-science fact-checker based on utilizing scientific evidence to refute claims. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and the use of expert Ph.D. level scientists/doctors to fact-check claims.
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Science Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in science-based media coverage. They state their goal is to help readers know which news to trust. They also provide feedback to editors about the credibility of information published in their outlets. Each reviewer holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals. Science Feedback publishes Climate Feedback, which fact-checks claims regarding climate change, and Health Feedback, which analyzes health and medical claims.
Funded by / Ownership
Science Feedback is a not-for-profit organization based in France. Revenue is derived through donations. Further, Science Feedback is fully transparent regarding donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the Science Feedback website does not produce original content but rather links to Climate and Health Feedback fact checks. They also provide links to articles in the press that mention Health or Climate Feedback. The website is free from editorial bias as it does not offer opinion pieces or publish news reporting. Further, on September 27, 2019, The IFCN concluded an investigation into a Science Feedback/Health Feedback fact check and found that “Science Feedback’s conclusion appears sound and fair, based on the best evidence. Their fact-check is an accurate attempt to inform readers on the veracity of a claim and strictly adheres to their scientific fact-checking methodology.”
However, the independent right-leaning Zebra Fact Check reports that Science Feedback “ignored context, altered a quotation, and ultimately relied on an equivocal argument.” Zebra Fact Check is not a signatory of the IFCN.
Failed Fact Checks
- None. In fact, they are a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).
Overall, we rate Science Feedback a pro-science fact-checker based on utilizing scientific evidence to refute claims. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and the use of expert Ph.D. level scientists/doctors to fact-check claims. (D. Van Zandt 4/19/2020) Updated (07/27/2022)
Last Updated on August 7, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.