Technical experts and writers often disagree about what constitutes accuracy in popular writings about science and technology, such as news media reports. In previous attempts to quantify accuracy in science news reporting, many of the sources' comments pointed to objective errors, but a sizable number dealt with lack of completeness or stylistic issues. There has been no consensus among communication researchers on the kind of scheme that should be used to code such information. We suggest a scheme for categorizing empirical information about the different kinds of perceived "errors" that technical sources identify in articles about their work by journalists and other writers. This study may lead to strategies for enhancing the accuracy of popular writings about science and technology.

Technical experts and writers often disagree about what constitutes accuracy in popular writings about science and technology, such as news media reports. In previous attempts to quantify accuracy in science news reporting, many of the sources' comments pointed to objective errors, but a sizable number dealt with lack of completeness or stylistic issues. There has been no consensus among communication researchers on the kind of scheme that should be used to code such information. We suggest a scheme for categorizing empirical information about the different kinds of perceived "errors" that technical sources identify in articles about their work by journalists and other writers. This study may lead to strategies for enhancing the accuracy of popular writings about science and technology.