The most common question about our researcher interview series is whether we can adequately understand and represent highly technical research accurately enough to interview researchers meaningfully, given that we're a business publication rather than a technical one.
Why this concern is legitimate
Misrepresenting technical research, even unintentionally, can meaningfully mislead readers and misrepresent the researcher's actual work, and business-focused interviewers genuinely risk this more than specialist technical journalists might.
What we actually do to mitigate this risk
We prepare more extensively for researcher interviews specifically, and we allow researchers to review the specific technical quotes attributed to them, solely for accuracy, before publication - a narrow exception to our general no-prior-review policy made specifically because of this risk.
Why we don't claim perfect technical fluency
We're honest that we're translating technical research for a business audience, not producing the kind of coverage a specialist technical publication would, and we think that's a legitimate and useful role even without claiming deep technical expertise ourselves.
Why we think this approach is the right one
We'd rather be transparent about our actual role - translating technical research accurately for a business audience - than overstate our own technical authority in a way that might mislead readers about what kind of coverage they're getting.