Provide names of other journalists involved.
N/A
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
16-Jan-12
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Head movements taint the results of many brain-imaging studies, particularly those analyzing children or individuals with developmental disorders, according to two sobering new studies.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
This story was based on two scientific papers, both published in early 2012: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019881 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810475. I also read several other scientific papers to supplement my reporting, all of which are referenced at the bottom of the article.
Explain types of human sources used.
I talked to the researchers who authored the two main studies, as well as several other experts in the field whose results may have been tainted by head motion.
Results:
N/A
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
N/A
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
For science reporting, very dense technical papers can often lead to good stories. If a researcher is putting forward a new methodology, after all, that means there’s something not ideal about what’s currently being used.