Flash Science
Editorial methodology
How Flash Science researches, writes, sources and corrects every explainer — the five-step process behind each article, and what happens when we get one wrong.
Flash Science exists to make the biggest questions in science clear, accurate and genuinely trustworthy. This page explains exactly how we produce our explainers, so you can judge our work for yourself.
Our five-step process
Research from primary sources
Every explainer begins with desk research drawing on reputable, authoritative sources — space agencies such as NASA and ESA; government science bodies such as NOAA, NIST, the FDA and the U.S. Department of Energy; peer-reviewed journals; national museums and observatories; and university educational resources. We prioritise primary and official sources over secondary reporting.
Write in plain language
We rewrite complex science into everyday English without dumbing it down. Each article opens with a direct "Flash Answer" for readers in a hurry, then builds the full explanation step by step with analogies, worked examples and clearly labelled key facts.
Separate fact from estimate
We are explicit about certainty. Established, well-measured facts are stated plainly; estimates, models and open questions are flagged as such in the text. Where a popular explanation is a myth — and in science many famous ones are — we present the myth alongside the actual evidence rather than repeating it.
Cite everything
Every explainer ends with a "Sources & further reading" list so you can verify our claims and go deeper. If a figure or claim matters, we want you to be able to check it at its source.
Review and date
Each article carries a visible published date and a visible last-reviewed date, and both are recorded in the page’s structured data. We revisit explainers periodically to keep figures current and correct anything new evidence has changed. Substantive corrections move the last-reviewed date.
How we use AI and original visuals
Flash Science uses AI tools as part of its research, drafting and illustration process, always under human editorial direction and review. Facts are checked against the authoritative sources listed in each article — not taken from a model's unaided output. No explainer is published without human review for accuracy and clarity.
Every cover and in-article illustration on this site is generated with AI image tools under human editorial direction, and each one carries a caption saying so. The full policy — including what we will never generate — is on the how we make our images page. They are illustrations, not photographs, and they are never presented as evidence for a claim: no image here is offered as a spacecraft photograph, a micrograph, a measurement or a scientific figure unless it is credited to the organisation that produced it. The portrait summary at the top of each article is an animated presentation of that still cover image together with the narration text — it is not a video recording.
Authorship
Every explainer is published under the byline of a named human editor, Sok Heng Oeun, who is responsible for its research, writing and final check. He is not a scientist and the about page says so plainly; the site’s credibility is meant to rest on the linked sources at the foot of every article, not on a credential. We do not fabricate author biographies, credentials, expert quotes, statistics, reviews or testimonials anywhere on this site.
Corrections policy
Accuracy matters more to us than speed. If you spot an error anywhere on Flash Science, please email contact@flashscience.org. We review every report, correct verified mistakes promptly, and update the article's "last reviewed" date when we make a substantive change.
Flash Science is a general-education resource. It is not a substitute for professional medical, legal, financial or engineering advice.