Expert source checklist: what to confirm before quoting anyone

Mistake: Mistaking a confident label for proof

Treating a title or office label as proof is the costliest error: it can turn personal interpretation or an unchecked statement into apparent evidence. Confirm who is speaking, what authority they have for this exact claim, and which record supports it before quoting or publishing the claim.

Record the source's full name and spelling, current title, organization, department, and contact channel. Note whether the role is current, former, acting, interim, unpaid, or emeritus, and record whether the terms are on-record, background, or otherwise agreed. The institutional claims guide helps match authority to the claim.

Turn the claim into one sentence, identify the record supporting it, and establish that record's author, date, version, and status. Check tables, appendices, notes, and methods, then distinguish data from interpretation and recommendation. An office statement should not replace the record that governs the claim.

Compare a spokesperson's answer with the controlling document, and describe disagreements between offices instead of combining their positions. The source material comparison explains what different records can establish. Keep the institutional position distinct from an individual's analysis, even when the same person communicates both.

Mistake: Choosing status over relevant expertise

A familiar title, prominent profile, or regular media presence does not establish that someone can answer the question at hand. General prestige cannot replace relevant experience in a specific field or method; relying on reputation alone can make a claim seem better supported than it is.

Define the question and field needed before arranging an interview. Check whether the expert's current work and experience and research methods fit that question, then ask where the source's comment stops. If the claim spans specialties, consult another field; the science and health reporting problems offer related checks.

A spokesperson should be quoted as an expert only when that person also has relevant expertise. Say whether a comment is expert analysis or the institution's position; do not merge those roles just because one person speaks for an organization. This distinction helps readers assess what the source is qualified to establish.

Mistake: Trimming a quotation until its meaning changes

A quotation may mislead even when every retained word is accurate if editing removes a material condition or makes it answer a different question. Check the recording, notes, or transcript, preserve the original meaning, and explain how translation was handled when it affects what readers understand.

Compare the published wording with the recording, notes, or transcript, including conditions that limit the statement. Keep the words connected to the question they answered, and state the translation method where relevant. The quotation attribution checks can help identify wording that shifts a source's meaning.

Mistake: Hiding why an unnamed source can know the claim

An anonymous source without a clear account of access and role leaves readers unable to judge the claim. Explain why protection is needed and what the source knows directly; provide useful context about the person's role without revealing an identity that was promised protection.

Describe the source's access and relevant role clearly enough for readers to assess the information, and state why protection is necessary. Context should help readers evaluate the claim without disclosing the protected identity. An account does not become verified merely because the source cannot be named.

Mistake: Turning an interest into a verdict

Calling a source conflicted without describing the relationship conceals its size, timing, and relevance. Ask about financial and nonfinancial interests, choose a time period that fits the subject, and describe the connection concretely without treating it as proof that the person's opinion is false.

Ask about research funding, institutional support, employment, consulting, fees, travel, board roles, patents, investments, licensing, paid testimony, advocacy, litigation, policy, and direct project roles. Establish who paid whom, for what work, during which period, and whether the relationship continues. Keep support to a department separate from payment to an individual.

WHO's publication on declarations of interest says people serving WHO in an advisory role must disclose circumstances that could create an actual or apparent conflict. That describes WHO's process, not proof that an outside interviewee completed the same formal review. Ask about interests when the subject creates a reasonable possibility of a relevant connection.

Record the relationship precisely and let the source correct its factual description before publication, without transferring newsroom judgment. Do not describe departmental support as individual income, or imply a patent matters without checking its status and connection to the claim. The health claim checklist can help keep interests in context.

Mistake: Reporting a disclosure as an institutional finding

An author's disclosure is not automatically an institution's conflict finding. Funding compliance has distinct duties and statuses, so report what was disclosed and whether the institution reviewed it. An empty biography does not establish that a person has no relevant interest.

NIH guidance describes applicant and recipient duties to report sources of support and relevant affiliations, alongside institutional duties to review significant financial interests for NIH-funded work. Those rules concern funding compliance; an individual disclosure and a formal institutional review are not the same statement.

Before describing a finding, establish whether the institution completed a review and what the result was. If a management plan exists, report it without implying it removed the interest. The statistical claim checks can help keep funding context separate from the claim being reported.

Mistake: Making the correction path an afterthought

At publication, attribution can disappear when it sits far from the disputed statement, a headline adopts an allegation, or a caption makes an illustration appear to be evidence. Keep attribution beside the claim and check how source files, follow-up responsibility, and corrections will move through every channel.

Treat publication as a handoff, not the end of verification. Assign a named reporter to the next document or disclosure check, and retain contact details and source files so the desk can revisit its basis. Set a correction route across every distribution channel rather than assuming an update in one place will reach everyone.