Contact

Questions about scientific content, corrections to published findings, and editorial inquiries about thescienceauthority.com are handled through a single contact process. This page outlines the geographic scope of coverage, what information helps get a useful response faster, and what realistic timelines look like for different types of requests.

Service area covered

The Science Authority publishes reference content with national scope across the United States, drawing on federal agency sources, peer-reviewed literature, and publicly available institutional data. Content spans established disciplines — from physics and chemistry to biology, earth science, and applied research — with particular attention to areas where public understanding tends to lag behind the research itself. That gap, between what the literature says and what most people have heard, is where most of the site's editorial energy lives.

For science topics with strong regional variation — climate data, public health statistics, environmental monitoring, or geological hazard assessments — content is framed at the national level while noting state-specific datasets where those are published by named agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Inquiries about topics that fall outside U.S. national scope may receive a response pointing toward more appropriate jurisdictional resources.

What to include in your message

The single most common reason a message takes longer than necessary to answer is that it doesn't give enough context. A message that says "I think something is wrong on your site" requires 3 or 4 back-and-forth exchanges before anything useful can happen. A message that names the specific page, the specific claim, and the source suggesting a different conclusion gets resolved in 1.

For the best chance of a substantive, timely response, structure any message to include the following:

Page or topic in question — the page title or URL path (e.g., /the-science-peer-reviewed-research) is more useful than a general subject description.
Nature of the inquiry — distinguish between a factual correction, a sourcing question, a missing-topic suggestion, a research collaboration inquiry, or a media/editorial request. These go to different reviewers.
Supporting source — for corrections, cite the specific publication, agency document, or named study that contradicts or updates the published claim. Unnamed personal expertise is noted but cannot be actioned without a traceable public source.
Contact preference and timeline — if a deadline matters (a journalist working on a story with a 48-hour window, for instance), say so explicitly. Assumed urgency is invisible.

Factual corrections vs. perspective disagreements are worth distinguishing here. A factual correction involves a verifiable claim — a measurement, a date, a named finding from a specific study — that can be checked against a primary source. A perspective disagreement involves a legitimate scientific debate where reasonable researchers hold differing positions. Both are worth raising, but they're handled differently: corrections trigger editorial review and potential page updates, while perspective disagreements may be acknowledged, forwarded to the relevant topic editor, or addressed in the site's controversies and debates coverage.

Response expectations

Editorial and correction inquiries typically receive an initial acknowledgment within 3 to 5 business days. Full review of a flagged factual claim — which involves checking the cited source, assessing the current page language, and determining whether an edit is warranted — takes longer, often 10 to 14 business days depending on the complexity of the topic and the specificity of the source provided.

Media and licensing inquiries are reviewed separately and may take up to 7 business days for an initial response. Research collaboration or academic partnership inquiries follow a similar timeline.

What not to expect: responses to messages asking for personalized medical, legal, or financial advice derived from scientific content. The site publishes reference information, not individual guidance. A page on public health and science, for example, explains mechanisms and population-level findings — it doesn't translate those findings into individual recommendations. That distinction matters, and it holds even when the underlying science is well-established.

Additional contact options

For readers who want to engage with the material before reaching out directly, the site maintains several reference sections that answer the most common questions without requiring a message:

Frequently Asked Questions addresses recurring points of confusion about methodology, terminology, and scientific consensus.
Myths and Misconceptions handles the most persistent claims that circulate despite contradicting published evidence.
Trusted Resources lists primary and secondary sources — databases, agency repositories, and journal indexes — for readers doing their own research.
Peer-Reviewed Research and Landmark Discoveries provide sourced summaries of foundational and current literature.

For journalists, the Practitioners and Experts section identifies named researchers and institutional contacts working in specific scientific fields — a more direct route to expert comment than routing through a general editorial inbox.

Corrections that result in published page updates are noted in the editorial record. The site does not publish a public corrections log by default, but substantive changes to factual claims — especially those affecting a numbered measurement, a named source, or a cited agency finding — are documented internally and available on request.

Report a Data Error or Correction

Found incorrect information, an outdated fact, or a broken link? Use the form below.