Editorial guidelines
These are a slightly abbreviated version of our internal editorial guidelines.
Journalistic conduct
As journalists, we strive to produce accurate, fair, and independent coverage. In our newsroom, this means following the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics and adhering to the guidance below.
Accuracy and fairness
When we make assertions, particularly negative ones, about individuals or organizations, or repeat assertions made by others, we make serious efforts to ensure they are true, and we reach out to the subjects of those assertions to give them an opportunity to respond. No subject of an MIT Technology Review story should be taken by surprise over assertions made within. For stories that are controversial, a “no surprises” letter should be sent prior to publication that lists any findings of fact and all allegations being made.
We don’t reflexively give equal weight to all sides of a discussion. In matters of genuine controversy, we will report the arguments of both sides fairly, but our ethical obligation is not to please any interest or party to a debate. It is to represent the truth, as best we know it, and acknowledge any uncertainties, or to delineate the terms of the controversy if the truth of the matter is genuinely in doubt.
Corrections and updates
If we make an error of fact, we should issue a timely correction. However, don’t be too hasty in publishing a correction. Double-check your facts, and consult with an editor first. There’s nothing worse than correcting a correction.
Here’s how to make a correction:
1. Make the change(s) to the story. Do not use strikethrough.
2. Add a note at the bottom in italics, explaining what was corrected, and giving the date (and time if a rapidly developing story) of the correction:
Correction (July 12): An earlier version of this article named the chairman of the Caltech science festival committee as Eric Thistletwit instead of Eric Thistlethwaite.
3. If the correction is serious enough to change the main thrust of the story or the headline, consider adding an editor’s note at the top.
We don’t need to note corrections for typos, grammatical errors, etc., unless those mistakes materially change the facts of the story.
If new information comes to light, an issue requires clarification, or we decide to add additional context or other information to a story after publication, then we should note that the story has been updated. As with a correction, please discuss any updates with an editor before making one.
Here’s how to update a story:
1. Updates should go wherever it seems most useful. For a post on a big, developing story, you could add a paragraph at the top:
Update (12:30pm ET): More than 12,000 people are now infected, according to the WHO.
2. If the update is a simple extra sentence (for instance, a comment from a company or person), you could do it in the text itself:
By the time the president visited Caltech, the chairman of the science festival committee, Eric Thistlethwaite, had resigned. (Update: Thistlethwaite says that he “had no knowledge of any slush fund.”
3. If it involves multiple changes, just write them in and add a note in italics at the bottom, listing each if they affect multiple parts of the story:
This story was updated on July 12 to include details of the conversation between Zuckerberg and Cook.
Sources
We adhere to the SPJ Code of Ethics for attribution and sourcing of information. We gather information directly from industry experts, policymakers, advocacy groups, and researchers as well as those affected by new technologies and scientific advances. We also consult scientific literature, government reports, historic records, and other primary sources to ensure that our coverage is accurate and that new advances are presented in proper context. We aim to represent a broad range of perspectives in our coverage and seek out new voices in our reporting.
In almost all cases, we fully and clearly identify our sources. All interviews should be conducted on the record unless the source requests otherwise. When a publicist or spokesperson comments on behalf of an organization, we name that person. If an organization will only offer an unattributed statement, we may accept it and attribute it to an organizational spokesperson or the organization itself with approval from the editor in chief. We can agree to speak to people on background, but we should clearly agree on what is meant in those situations as the definition can vary.
Sources necessarily are close to the topics they speak to us about, but we should make a point of asking them about any conflicts of interest that may not be apparent and disclose those in our reporting.
We should seek parental permission when working with a source who is a minor or when we publish content contributed by a minor.
We grant anonymity to sources only when it’s necessary to protect the safety of the source or when they have a legitimate fear of retribution (such as losing their job), and when it’s not possible to get the information in any other way. Writers should tell their editors the true identity of anonymous sources and make the case as to why they should be kept anonymous. We must clearly explain to our audience why we are using an anonymous source in any story. Do not list the names or identifying information of anonymous sources in insecure channels.
If we promise anonymity to a source, we will explain what that means in plain language so the source is aware that any quotes or information we gather may be used in the story, without their name. If we agree to allow a source to speak “off the record,” we mean that nothing we hear will be quoted or paraphrased in a story, even without attribution.
Though we might confirm the accuracy of a portion of a story with a source in the process of editing or fact checking, we do not share the full text of a story (or meaningful sections of it) with sources in advance. We do not agree to quote approval. If a source disputes a quote after publication, the writer should review the language and context with their editor before agreeing to making any changes.
We always introduce ourselves to potential sources as journalists for MIT Technology Review. Under no circumstances should we misrepresent ourselves.
Fact checking
Fact checking as much of our work as possible prior to publication helps ensure our coverage is as accurate as it can be, which builds trust with our audience. Journalists should make every effort to check their own work in the time available, and editors may do light fact checking during the editing process.
Generally speaking, though, fact checking means having a story reviewed by a dedicated fact checker who hasn’t been involved in the reporting or editing process. Since that person is coming to the story fresh, they can more easily spot errors or note logical inconsistencies that the reporter and editor may have missed.
All features and investigations are fact checked in this manner by an external fact checker. Editors should also request a fact check for any news stories that are technically complex or sensitive in nature.
AI use
AI, and generative AI particularly, encompasses a set of technologies with many potential uses in creative and journalistic work. Our guidelines on AI use will evolve along with the technology itself and the legal landscape. We encourage our journalists to experiment with emerging AI-based tools in their research and reporting—for applications such as generating ideas, story research, transcribing interviews, drafting headlines or social copy, searching public documents, and collating their notes, for example—and to share what they learn with their colleagues, as well as our audience.
We do not use generative AI to draft articles or parts of articles. The rare exception might be to demonstrate the capabilities of these tools when we report on them, in which case its use should be clearly disclosed.
Given the current debates over fair use, MIT Technology Review does not publish AI-generated artwork unless the related story is specifically about AI-generated images, or if the artwork is fully licensed and cleared of copyright issues. AI image-editing tools may be used, but their use should be additive not creative. Any images created by AI should be clearly labeled as such. Audio and video content that is AI-generated should also be clearly labeled as such wherever it’s shared.
When using AI, as with any other tool or resource we choose to consult, responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of what we publish lies with the journalist. Using generative AI tools, which often get things wrong, increases the journalist’s obligation to double-check their facts and to guard against the inadvertent introduction of bias or error. As creative professionals, we also recognize that the use of generative AI tools requires extra caution to avoid plagiarizing the work or infringing on the copyrights of others.
Plagiarism
Your work should be your own. No text should be copied and reused from other sources, including press releases or generative AI, unless clearly set off in quotes with attribution. When referencing your own previous work, you should be clear about the source (“As I previously reported for MIT Technology Review”) and set any verbatim quotations from your previous writing in quotation marks. For explainers that are excerpted from stories, add a line to the bottom stating where the text originally appeared (“A similar version of this article appeared in the story titled “HEADLINE.”)
Conflicts of interest
Our credibility depends on preserving the integrity of our reporting. This means we avoid conflicts of interest—any situations that might suggest the potential to or appearance of trading on a relationship or accepting favors in exchange for desirable coverage—between our journalists and their sources and the subjects of their reporting.
Writers and editors should err on the side of discussing any situation that might represent a conflict of interest with their manager. Often, disclosing the potential conflict is sufficient; in other cases, a writer may need to decline an opportunity or be reassigned from a particular story or beat. If you have a question about whether something is a conflict of interest, it is worth having a discussion with your editor.
The following examples describe situations that might present a conflict of interest and should be discussed with an editor:
- A biotech reporter interned at a major pharmaceutical company for six months five years ago, before they became a journalist. The company is occasionally mentioned in their stories.
- An academic researcher asks a reporter to contribute a chapter to a book that the researcher is publishing. The reporter would be credited in the book and they would receive $5,000 for their contribution. The researcher has appeared in the reporter’s stories as a source once or twice in the past year.
- A regional development corporation has invited a climate reporter on a press trip, paid for by the organization, to visit a battery manufacturing facility and a new low-emissions data center project in the area.
- A climate reporter holds a dozen shares of stock in a major pharmaceutical company.
- An editor’s domestic partner is a freelance software engineer who occasionally does work for major tech companies that appear in our coverage.
Editors should ask freelance writers to divulge any potential conflicts of interest and avoid knowingly hiring writers with connections to the companies or institutions about which they write. Our new freelance writer contracts now outline what constitutes a COI.
Gifts and reimbursements
Journalists may not accept gifts greater than $50 in cumulative value from any source or company in a given year, including samples from companies or products handed out at conferences and trade shows. Complimentary services provided by companies that assist in the reporting process (such as those offered by LinkedIn or similar) may be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
Generally speaking, journalists should pay for their own meals when traveling or meeting with sources. However, we recognize that may not always be possible or practical. It’s okay to accept an occasional meal from a source or company if refusing would be impractical. Press-only event meals, including those hosted by tech companies, at which multiple media outlets are in attendance, or meals provided for conferences, are acceptable.
We solicit and receive books to review, and they can be kept by the person who reviews them or given away—they cannot be sold for personal profit. If we solicit electronic devices or other products to review, those products must be returned soon after the review is completed. Any product reviews reflect our honest opinion of the product and are not affected by the willingness of the company to supply us with samples.
Our journalists may attend conferences whose organizers waive or discount the attendance fee as a press privilege.
Our journalists do not accept free trips or personal reimbursement for travel or other expenses from the companies we cover or from public-relations firms or advocacy organizations representing such companies. If a journalist is in doubt about whether a specific company or organization meets that definition, they should speak with their manager.
In very rare cases, such as when reporting on a scientific expedition or a military mission, it may not be possible to travel without accepting financial assistance or other support from the organization we’re covering. In these cases, we should disclose that support in the story.
Investments
Our journalists and freelancers cannot directly own individual stocks or equities in companies that they cover in their own reporting or editing, nor may they sell such shares short. If the spouse or partner of an editor, reporter, or freelancer owns significant stock or equity (valued at more than $30,000) in a company they cover, they should tell their editor or manager, who will determine whether it merits a disclosure in our coverage.
If a journalist previously worked for a company which they now cover, or if their spouse or partner currently does, the journalist should tell their editor, but this fact needn’t necessarily be disclosed in a story (unless they or their family member hold stock or equity in that company, in which case—see above).
Similarly, our journalists must disclose any cryptocurrencies they own in any story they write about cryptocurrency.
Political activity
Journalists are encouraged to be civically engaged, but they should refrain from political activity that creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Journalists should not run for office, donate to political campaigns, participate in protests related to issues they may cover, or publicly take partisan positions (supporting or opposing a political party, government official, political candidate, or specific policy or legislation) beyond what would be permissible in their published work for MIT Technology Review.
Relationship to MIT
MIT Technology Review is a 501(c)(3), not-for-profit media company, wholly owned by MIT and editorially independent from it—which means MIT does not influence our coverage in any way.
Several members of our board of directors, including the chair, are senior officers of MIT. Our board provides financial oversight and corporate governance, and also offers strategic advice to the company’s chief executive and senior staff. The complete list of the board can be found here.
As employees of MIT, MIT Technology Review’s staff benefit from the Institute’s many resources, including easy access to its prominent faculty and researchers. At the same time, our coverage of technology is independent of MIT. We do not favor people or technologies simply because they are associated with the Institute. We are not part of MIT’s communications functions; it is not our job to promote its activities.
The exception to this last rule is MIT Alumni News, which is paid for by the alumni association and distributed to the Institute’s alumni, students, and faculty. Some of the stories in MIT Alumni News are written by reporters from the Institute’s News Office, although the publication’s editor is an MIT Technology Review employee.
Advertising
Our advertising sales and business development staff do not attempt to influence editorial coverage and do not suggest to potential advertisers or their agencies that coverage can be purchased. As a business, we do consider whether news products or the broad topics of special issues, packages, projects, and reports will be attractive to advertisers or their agencies. Sponsors may review design mockups of packages of projects they’ve underwritten in advance of publication, but will have no early access to any editorial content prior to publication.
The editor in chief, executive editors, and select editors may speak or meet with potential advertisers or their agencies to explain the editorial mission of MIT Technology Review. In these cases, an advertiser may cover travel expenses for an editor to attend a meeting or present at an event. Editors will not receive any compensation for such events and should be clear that coverage can not be influenced by any business arrangements.
Our publishing platforms, whether digital or print, have been designed to avoid confusion between editorial and advertising. Where there is ambiguity, anything sponsored or otherwise purchased in MIT Technology Review’s media is labeled “advertisement” or “sponsored” or “presented by” or some such. Ads are positioned to avoid any misperception that they are endorsed by the newsroom. At our events, displays and speeches by sponsors are clearly and unambiguously described as purchased.
Native advertising
MIT Technology Review sometimes publishes articles from sponsors in the same channels where our own editorial stories can be found—including the pages of our US and international print magazines, the website’s home page, on topic pages or story-level pages, in the app, and in email newsletters.
Material from advertisers is always unambiguously labeled, and the sponsor is always clearly identified. This advertising material is produced without the involvement of MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff; sponsors either hire MIT Technology Review’s advertising team to create it on their behalf or produce it themselves. The subject matter and relevance of the pieces is approved by the magazine’s publisher. The publisher will reject sponsored content as inappropriate if it is not informative for our audience or not aligned with the mission of our publication, which is to discuss the impact of new technologies. However, this does not mean that sponsored content reflects the views of MIT Technology Review; nor should the presence of sponsored content be taken as an endorsement of an advertiser’s products or services.
Sponsors have no influence on editorial decisions, including what we choose to write about. Editorial coverage of any of our advertisers may be flattering or unflattering, as a story warrants.