Create a research news digest

Choose stories around a coherent question

Select a small number of findings that answer a shared audience question rather than assembling unrelated impressive headlines. Decide what prior knowledge the audience has and which terms need explanation. A digest for specialist readers may retain terminology that a general-interest programme must unpack.

Record why each study belongs in the episode. If it provides background rather than new evidence, label that role. Do not turn an older finding into a new discovery because it fits the week's theme or because a secondary article has recently discussed it.

Read beyond the headline and abstract

Collect the primary research source and the passages supporting the proposed statements. Record the study population or material, method, measured outcome and stated limitations. Keep the researchers' interpretation separate from the observations or results on which it rests.

Check publication status and dates using the current source before writing definitive language. If uncertainty remains about a technical point, ask the relevant subject reviewer and keep the script provisional. This workflow is for editorial explanation; it should not turn a research finding into personalised medical, legal or financial advice.

Research question: [what was examined].
Source and status: [primary document and current status].
Method: [what the researchers did].
Result: [what was observed or measured].
Limit: [what cannot be inferred].
Audience meaning: [careful interpretation].

Use visuals that preserve the study's meaning

A simplified diagram can clarify a method, but it should not suggest a scale, causal relationship or certainty that the source does not support. Review diagrams, labels and visual comparisons with the subject editor. If a generated scene is merely illustrative, make that distinction clear in the programme.

Build each item around question, approach, result and limit. Give the limitation enough attention that it survives the viewer's summary of the story. At Voices, check specialist terms and emphasis; overstressing a speculative phrase can make a cautious script sound conclusive.

• Identify the actual measured outcome.
• Preserve relevant sample or context limits.
• Distinguish a proposed explanation from an established result.

Keep an update and correction record

Use explicit editorial approval before production and compare the final programme with the frozen script. Retain the source record and the date checked. Decide who will review later corrections, revisions or other changes to the research record and how a published item would be amended.

During a real pilot, ask viewers to explain both the main finding and its important limit. Measure editorial review time and correction needs alongside creative production effort. Simulated reactions can help with clarity but do not establish scientific accuracy or audience understanding.

Questions & answers