VERIFIED MEMBERS

Membership in the EFCSN signifies an organisation’s rigorous commitment to provide accurate information ethically and transparently, without bias or prejudice and focus on matters in the public interest as well as a proven track record of excellence, integrity and accountability as definied in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations.

← Return to organization page

Medizin transparent

Website

https://medizin-transparent.at/

Date

04/05/2024

Please, answer the following questions:

Article 2.2: Methodology

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

A summary of our methodology can be found here: https://medizin-transparent.at/wie-wir-arbeiten/
This page also links to our full length methods paper which can be directly assessed here as a PDF file: https://medizin-transparent.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Methodenpapier-Medizin-transparent_v1.0.pdf
Our rating system is explained in detail here: https://medizin-transparent.at/bewertungs-kriterien/

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 10/03/2024

The organization provides a clear and compliant description of how staff conduct research to evaluate claims and how fact-checks are written, edited and published. Also the rating system is well explained.
However, the organization DOES NOT provide a description of they find or choose claims for investigation. The website just states "Our research begins with a precisely defined question". The full methods paper also does not provide information on the process that guides which claims are being asses and which aren't. It is unclear how the organization identifies claims that could provide the basis of the described "precisely defined question".

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 10/03/2024

I have to correct myself, the methods paper includes this section:
"The selection of topics for Medizin-transparent is based on inquiries from readers regarding widespread myths or claims from the media, the Internet or advertising. Even without a request, we take up a topic if it is widely discussed in the media and can therefore be assumed to be of great public interest. In addition, we research in lay media to find out whether widespread misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge exist and address these in our in our text."
I am, however, still missing some kind of a clear guideline/process here. Are all claims investigated that are sent in by readers? What exactly qualifies as "widely discussed in the media"? How are "widespread misunderstandings" identified? Furthermore, this information should already be addressed on the website methodology and not only in the methods paper.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

We added a section on the site https://medizin-transparent.at/wie-wir-arbeiten dedicated to the selection of our topics. Here is a translation of this section:

When selecting topics for our fact checks, we are guided by requests from website readers, from users on our social network channels, from medical or pharmaceutical healthcare professionals or from journalistic media. We also scan social networks, online, print and broadcast media for health claims at irregular intervals. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to process all inquiries and health claims found. We therefore select topics according to two principles:

Public interest: We select those health claims for which there are the most search queries in the Google search engine (being an indirect measure of public interest)
Risk of harm: We prioritize health claims that could cause a health or financial harm

The editorial team decides on the selection of fact check topics unanimously or, in controversial cases, by majority vote.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 15/02/2024

The website contains all the information required. A shorter, easily understandable explanation is given on the website. In addition, the website provides an extensive, in-depth description of the procedures in a methods paper that can be downloaded as pdf. The information where/how the organization finds and chooses claims for investigation is contained in the methods paper but not in the short description on the website. The page https://medizin-transparent.at/wie-wir-arbeiten/ could be further improved by adding this information.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

All fact-checks are rather technical. They investigate the (in-)effectiveness of different medical treatments. None of the fact-checks are therefore ad hoc "political". No differential treatment could be identified.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 15/02/2024

I could not find that this practice is noted in the organization's methodology but I must say that I find it difficult to apply this criterion to this specific organization that exclusively works on medical issues. The organization states its political impartiality on the website in a general way. None of the fact-checks I read dealt with any political parties, which is unsurprising for medical fact-checks.

In the fact checks I read, it was not made clear who made the claim so I couldn't check if the organization treats all originators of claims equally. However, this has to do with that the organization often checks "common places" and general assumptions that are circulating in the population. Thus, there is often simply not a certain actor making a claim.

To sum up, it is difficult to apply this criterion to this specific organization but I chose to evaluate it with "need more information" since I would like to hear the organization's thoughts thereon.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

In our fact checks, we strive for maximal objectivity. Thus, we apply our strict methodology to all our fact checks in the same way. The sole evidence we consider in judging whether a health claim is true or false (or cannot be answered since it has not been scientifically researched) consists of scientific studies. This can be seen in our fact checks on Covid-related topics, such as "mask wearing" or vaccines. If a study is at risk of being biased by a commercial or political conflict of interest, we point out that fact. If a health claim originates from a specific company or person trying to promote their product or health service, we point this out in our fact check. However, many of the health claims we check do not originate from a single source but are widespread claims or even beliefs.
Often, our fact checks address esoteric or "alternative medicine" topics. We take special care to write about these topics as objectively as possible and to take potential fans of these methods as seriously as possible in their wish to find a remedy for their health problem. At the same time, we point out clearly when an esoteric or alternative medicine health claim is scientifically implausible.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

Thank you for the additional explanation. My evaluation is that the organization complies with this standard.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

Many claims that we check are sent in by our readers. However, some of topics are also chosen by us, if we feel a topic is discussed broadly in the public, in mass media or in social media. (see chapter 3.1 in our methods paper).

Our readers send in far more topics than we are able to fact-check. As we describe here: https://medizin-transparent.at/fragen-sie-nach/ , we have to make a selected choice. This choice is determined by public relevance, as expressed mainly by the number of search requests in internet search engines.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

The organization is compliant. It mainly - if not solely - addresses question that relate to individual and public health. However, it remains somewhat unclear how the organization decides for which claims to check and which not to (see also sections above). What does the organization mean, when it explains "expressed mainly by the number of search requests in internet search engines"? What does this mean in practice?

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 15/02/2024

As the focus of this organization is on medical issues, it naturally only covers medical issues, but the range of medical issues that it works on is broad, and I can clearly see the relevance of the issues for both individuals and society. Moreover, all fact-checks are based on scientific evidence and explain scientific standards to the readers. Under Alle Themen | Medizin transparent (medizin-transparent.at), the fact-checks are grouped after certain issues which comprise health issues/problems that affect many people and are thus relevant both for many individuals and for the society as a whole.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

In most cases the conclusions of the fact-checks are already backed by the publicly available abstracts to published scientific studies. However, as the organization heavily relies on academic publications, again, some of the relevant information used to fact-check specific claims are hidden for most people behind academic publishers' paywalls. Overall, however, I do not believe that this should be an issue.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 18/02/2024

I could not find that this practice is included in the applicant's methodology but maybe I overlooked it (the methods paper is quite extensive). This is why I clicked on "need more information", and I hope the organization can give exact information where this is noted down in the methodology. However, in all fact-checks that I randomly checked, the organization clearly followed this practice by using scientific studies as references.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

You were correct, we have not mentioned this practice in our methods paper, although we follow it in all our fact checking articles. We have now added a sentence detailing this under https://medizin-transparent.at/wie-wir-arbeiten/#scrollspyHeading2

here is the translation of the added sentence:

All statements on scientific facts or judgements are complemented with references to scientific studies in square brackets, which can be retraced via a web link or a detailed bibliography at the end of the text.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

Thank you for adding this sentence, therewith the organization complies now with this standard.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

As the organization only fact-checks health claims/medical claims the definition of "primary sources" and "secondary sources" somewhat differs to more generalized fact-checks. The organization does not fact-checks whether a specific event happened or whether a specific statement has been made or to what extent events or statements have been misqualified.
The organization fact-checks medical/health claims on the basis of a review of scientific studies on the topic. In such cases in - also as the organization describes - might actually be more purposeful to look at so-called review articles that can either provide new "primary evidence" (e.g., meta analyses) or solely provide "secondary evidence" (e.g., scoping review of several individual studies). Overall this methodology, however, makes sense and is being followed in the organization's fact-checks.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 18/02/2024

This practice is included in the methodology. In almost all fact-checks I randomly checked, more than two scientific studies were used as primary sources for checking the central claims investigated. The only exception was a claim on which the fact-checking team was not able to find any trustworthy scientific studies. It was clearly stated in the fact-check that the team could not find any trustworthy studies (https://medizin-transparent.at/e-chi/).

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 10/03/2024

As the fact-checks mainly rely on studies published in scientific articles they do not quote individuals or individual experts. The credibility is established through academic-style citations in text and the reference list that highlights the exact reference. If important to EFCSN this could be improved by always highlighting when a claim is being verified on the basis of an academic publication and in which cases the source hidden behind the ENDNOTE citation in text is not an academic paper. Currently the fact-checks do not differentiate between the two. In some instances, this could lead to misperceptions.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

As stated in our methods paper, ALL claims that we fact check are solely verified on the basis of published scientific studies. It there are no published scientific data, we mark a claim as "lacking scientific proof" and point out in the text that this claim has never been meaningfully/significantly researched and it is not clear whether the claim is true or not.

No claim will be judged on the basis of other sources, such as expert opinions etc. If we do reference an expert opinion or a media article, we make this very clear in our texts - and we point out that the referenced statements are not more than speculations or anecdotes and not backed by scientific data/studies.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 18/02/2024

In the fact-checks I checked, I found several examples where the credibility of sources was discussed and evaluated. In these examples, these sources were companies who sell the product whose effect is checked in the fact-check, and the motives of these companies (selling the product) were discussed as potentially affecting the credibility of the studies that these companies rely their advertising promises on.

Best Practices:

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Article 3.1: Non-Partisanship and Impartiality

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

Our non-partisanship is explained on this page unter subheading "Redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit": https://medizin-transparent.at/partner-und-foerdergeber/

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

The organization does not fact check political claims. While the parent company is not beyond criticism. It largely follows a scientific methodology in their reviews that are internationally recognized as the highest standard in evidence-based health care. Singular reviews have come under scrutiny in the past and will probably also do so in the future. However, this is the scientific process.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 18/02/2024

Under the link provided above, the applicant clearly states its non-partisanship and impartiality and makes clear that funders do not have any influence on the content of the fact-checks. The link also includes the following statement (translated to English by me): "Medizin transparent is an objective, non-political and impartial fact-checking service. We are committed to refraining from co-operation with any political party. Our choice of topics is based exclusively on the above criteria and does not favor any topics that can be assigned to a particular political direction. We distance ourselves from election recommendations or advertising in favor of a political party, direction or candidate for public office. Members of the editorial team may not hold a paid position or prominent unpaid position with a political party, the government or an institution that is under the influence of the government or a political party. Members of the editorial team of Medizin Transparent may not make political statements on behalf of Medizin Transparent, on behalf of the department or on behalf of Cochrane Austria and may not accept gifts, favors or services with favourable conditions in the working environment that exceed the usual level of courtesy."

I did not find any evidence of partisanship and partiality in any of the fact-checks I read.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

On this page (subheading "Redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit", we state that we are apolitical, impartial and clarify that our choice of topics is not influenced by one side of the political spectrum: https://medizin-transparent.at/partner-und-foerdergeber/

10 Fact-checks showing that we do "not focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum“
Preamble: Since Medizin transparent is fact-checking health claims and not political misinformation/claims, few of our articles have direct political relevance. Therefore, section 3.1.D. does often not apply to our work. For some topics however, there might still remain some influence by publicly funded organizations within the health care system. For the following topics, we try to elucidate how we think we have avoided focusing on one side for controversial topics.

1) Molnupiravir bei Covid-19: Kaum Schutz vor schwerer Erkrankung?

https://medizin-transparent.at/molnupiravir/

published on 2 january 2023

Covid-19 continues to be a controversial issue for different sides of the political spectrum. In our fact checks of Covid treatments, we make sure to ignore such opinions and to stick solely to the evidence shown in scientific studies. As with all our fact checks, we stick to our methods manual which can be found on our website: https://medizin-transparent.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Methodenpapier-Medizin-transparent_v1.0.pdf

Molnupiravir (Lagevrio) was approved conditionally in the USA and UK (among other countries). Also, the medication was available in Austria by the ministry of health as part of a Compassionate Use Program: https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20220127_OTS0147/lagevrio-molnupiravir-steht-im-rahmen-des-compassionate-use-programmes-in-oesterreich-fuer-risikopatienten-zur-verfuegung-bild , Despite that and the fact that Medizin-transparent was in 2023 partly funded by the Austrian Ministery of Health, our fact check in January 2023 came to the conclusion that the medication was probably not effective in the treatment of severe Covid-19 cases. (proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20230208004446/https://medizin-transparent.at/molnupiravir/ ) When the European Medicines Agency EMA explained in February 2023, that Molnupiravir will not be approved (and the Austrian Ministry of health withdrew its recommendation) we updated our text with this fact but did not have to change our conclusion, since the scientific evidence had not changed since January. (see last version of the fact check from March 2nd: https://web.archive.org/web/20230208004446/https://medizin-transparent.at/molnupiravir/ which is still the latest version) All our conclusions are backed by scientific references, which are explained transparently in detail in the section “Die Studien im Detail”.

2) Ivermectin gegen Corona: Studien zufolge wohl wirkungslos

https://medizin-transparent.at/ivermectin-corona/
published on 5 december 2023

Despite scientific evidence for lack of effectiveness, Ivermectin has been promoted by the Austrian far right party FPÖ as a Covid-19 treatment. In our fact checking article, we mention that Ivermectin has been promoted as a Covid treatment by many, including populist politicians (this was also the case in other countries). However, we do not go into further details, and we try to stick to the scientific evidence as our only argument against effectiveness as a Covid treatment.

Our conclusion did not change much since the first version of our fact check from May 2021 (https://web.archive.org/web/20210515120513/https://medizin-transparent.at/ivermectin-corona/ ) until now. All updates reflected solely the changing scientific evidence, which showed more and more clearly with time that Ivermectin was ineffective.

As with all our fact checks, we came to our conclusion solely by following our methods outlined in our methods manual: https://medizin-transparent.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Methodenpapier-Medizin-transparent_v1.0.pdf All our conclusions are backed by scientific references, which are explained transparently in detail in the section “Die Studien im Detail”.

3) Rotlicht bei Wunden: Nutzen unklar

https://medizin-transparent.at/rotlicht-bei-wunden/
published on 30 March 2023

The public (state-funded) health-insurance organization BVAEB is paying for a non-proven treatment with the „Repuls“ red light device, e.g. in the case of a sprained ankle (result of investigative inquiry). Although Medizin-transparent was partly funded by BVAEB in 2023, our fact check regarding this device revealed a serious lack of evidence.

4) Amalgam: Zahnfüllung schädlich oder nicht?

https://medizin-transparent.at/amalgam-schaedlich/
published on 13 June 2023

Amalgam fillings for decayed teeth are a very controversial topic and the center of much health misinformation. Amalgam fillings are paid for by state-funded health insurance, while composite fillings are not. And this might also be a political decision. Also, amalgam fillings are the center of much health disinformation.

As with all our fact checks, we came to our conclusion solely by following our methods outlined in our methods manual and by considering only scientific evidence and not public or political opinion: https://medizin-transparent.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Methodenpapier-Medizin-transparent_v1.0.pdf All our conclusions are backed by scientific references, which are explained transparently in detail in the section “Die Studien im Detail”.

5) Zahnpasta mit Fluorid: eher unbedenklich

https://medizin-transparent.at/fluorid-zahnpasta-gesundheitsschaedlich/
published on 26 July 2023

Fluoride in toothpaste is a very controversial topic and the center of much health misinformation. Although there are toothpastes without added fluoride, the fluoride content of toothpastes is legally regulated and thus a topic with potential political influence.

6) Misteltherapie bei Krebs fragwürdig

https://medizin-transparent.at/misteltherapie-krebs/
published on 17 July 2023

Mistle therapy is a complementary medicine therapy for cancer patients that was paid until at least 2017 by some of the public health insurance organizations in Austria (see https://science.orf.at/v2/stories/2849051/ ) Insofar, this might also be a politically relevant topic. However, it is not paid for anymore (see Erstattungscodex https://www.sozialversicherung.at/oeko/views/index.xhtml ) Although Medizin transparent was in part funded by 3 different public health insurance organizations (BVAEB, SVS, ÖGK), our conclusion was that there was a lack of evidence for the efficacy of mistle toe in cancer therapy.

7) CBD für besseren Schlaf? Wirkbelege fehlen

https://medizin-transparent.at/cbd-schlaf/
published on 3 March 2023

CBD can be legally sold in Austria. However, not all political parties are happy with this legal situation. We do mention this legal situation, but our fact check is not influenced by it.

8) Vitamin D: wahrscheinlich kein Schutz vor Corona

https://medizin-transparent.at/vitamin-d-corona/
published on 20 April 2023

Vitamin D is purported as an alternative cure against the Corona virus disease by many on the populist or rightwing side of politics. As always, we strive to stay neutral in both our choice of words and argumentation.

9) Mundspülung Linola sept: Corona-Schutz nicht plausibel

https://medizin-transparent.at/linola-sept-mundspuelung/

published on 29 November 2023

Mouth rinses are another alternative treatment promoted my many as an alternative cure against Covid-19 – especially in supporters of the political right wing spectrum. As always, we strive to stay neutral in both our choice of words and argumentation.

10) Viruprotect: Unwirksamer Erkältungsspray gegen Viren

https://medizin-transparent.at/viruprotect/
published on 5 December 2023

Many supporters and politicians of the political right wing spectrum (e.g. the Austrian MFG party of the FPÖ) tend to promote treatments or preventive measures instead of vaccines or medication with proven efficacy. As always, we strive to stay neutral in both our choice of words and argumentation.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

Even when health claims that are investigated may stem initially from political actors, the organization discusses the claim independently of the political actor or organization without mentioning it. The organization solely investigates the health claim without putting blame on the source that may have made claim salient in the public in the first place. The organization merely investigates whether there is any medical or public health evidence that confirms or disproves the claim.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 18/02/2024

I agree with the applicant that this standard is difficult to apply on the applicant with its focus on medical issues. However, the policy is contained in the methodology, and the 10 fact-checks listed here are good examples that the organization provides politically neutral information even in case of issues that are instrumentalized by certain political actors.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

We clarify this on this page (section "Redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit").
Since Medizin transparent is a project of the Austrian branch of the Cochrane Organization (see section "Redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit" here: https://medizin-transparent.at/partner-und-foerdergeber/ our team members are not allowed to have conflicts of interest. This is also clarified here in detail for Cochrane International, of which the Austrian Branch is a member: https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/editorial-policies/coi-policy/start-here

Medizin transparent team members are employees of the Department for evidence based medicine of the University for Continuing Education Krems and as such also part of the Austrian Branch of the Cochrane organization. Accepting gifts or favors would be a breach of the department's rules. If there is a breach of such rules, the head of deparment Prof. Gerald Gartlehner will decide on disciplinary matters that include the possible termination of the work contract with the department and the university. Prof. Gerald Gartlehner - as well as any other employee of our university deparment - has full access to all our documentation behind our fact checking articles, should any concerns arise. This ensures a large degree of internal transparency and will make it unlikely that our fact checks could be influenced in an unobjective way without being noticed.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

The applicant has such a policy that appears sufficient to ensure compliance with the standard.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

see section "Redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit" here https://medizin-transparent.at/partner-und-foerdergeber/

As described before, in our methods paper, section "5.4 Sicherstellung von Objektivität und Qualität" makes clear that all investigation/research steps are always documented in a standardized way. This documentation is always cross-checked by other team members, as stated in section "5.4.1 Interne Qualitätskontrolle" in our methods paper. Should any doubt arise concerning the objectivity of a fact check, this documentation can be accessed by all team members as well as by other employees of our university department - including head of department Prof. Gerald Gartlehner. Also each fact checking article is cross-checked again - also for objectivity - by at least one team member before it is published online.

The published version of each fact check contains the names of its main author and those team members that crosschecked the article and the scientific evidence behind it. This will ensure that no article is published that does not comply with our objectivity policies. No article is published that has not been crosschecked by at least another of our 4 editorial team members employed by the university.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

Under the link provided above, the applicant clearly states that they comply with this standard. The non-partisanship policies are described in detail on their website. Thus, I arrived at the result that the applicant adequately complies with this standard.

Article 3.2: Privacy and Safety

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Best Practices

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

This aspect does not apply to our work. We are fact-checking health claims about treatments, diagnosis or prevention of diseases, and not traumatising content.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

Download File

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 10/03/2024

The organization seems to have misunderstood what is asked here. I would expect that – in particular since the pandemic and increasingly political polarization towards public health and medical evidence – staff of Medizin-Transparent is subjected to regular harassment. The organization should clarify if they have systems in place that protect their staff against such outside pressures and harassment.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

We did have two SLAP law suits so far that we had to fend off (see https://medizin-transparent.at/klagen-chronologie-und-urteile/ ) For this, we had great support from our university's legal department, which payed and organized a lawyer for us and supported us in any way.
Apart from legal support, the university also offers psychological coaching for employees in need, and the head of our department will support us should we be harrassed in any way. (Luckily, even during Covid times we have never been exposed to serious harassment.)

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

I agree that this standard does not apply to this applicant.

Article 3.3: Honest corrections

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

Any correction will be mentioned as described here in section "Inhaltliche Korrekturen": https://medizin-transparent.at/wie-wir-arbeiten/

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/03/2024

Medizin-Transparent sometimes updates their fact-checks when news evidence is available. This does not even require to be evidence that contradicts previous judgments. For example, when previously only single studies existed on a topic but afterwards a review/meta analysis is published - fact-checks are still updated.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

The guide for assessors state: "The policy should detail all of the standards in Article 3.3." I assume that this applies to the standards 3.3.A to 3.3.G, not the optional best practice standards. However, since I found standard 3.3.B not to be fulfilled, I have to choose "not compliant" also for 3.3.A. I think the applicant could easily comply this standard by including a statement referred to in 3.3.B in their corrections policy.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 19/03/2024

We added this section under https://medizin-transparent.at/wie-wir-arbeiten/#scrollspyHeading4

If an error cannot be directly corrected afterwards, we will publish a correction in the same format and on the same channel as the original version. This applies to social media postings, for example.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

The organization does now comply with the standard.

Best Practices:

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as best practices that are encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Article 4.1: Organisational transparency

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Proof of registration/legal status:

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

As far as I can see, many of the questions raised under this standard in the guide for assessors are not relevant to this applicant since it is a project owned by a publicly financed university. However, information thereon can be found on the links provided above.

Please note that the list of team members under one of these links (Fachbereich Medizin Transparent - Department für Evidenzbasierte Medizin und Evaluation - Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (donau-uni.ac.at)) is not updated. Therefore, I chose to select "need more information" to give the applicant the opportunity to update this page.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 13/03/2024

We have now updated the list of members on the university project site: https://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/fakultaeten/gesundheit-medizin/departments/evidenzbasierte-medizin-klinische-epidemiologie/zentren-und-fachbereiche/zentrum-cochrane-oesterreich/medizin-transparent.html

Please note that Iris Hinneburg is an external member of our team and not a university employee. Therefore, she is not shown on the university page (we cannot add her, since she is not in the IT system of the university homepage)

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

The organization complies with the standard now.

Proof of ownership:

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

The required information can be found on the website.

Proof of governance structure:

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 19/02/2024

This information can be found on the website.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

Our team page lists all current team members, their professional biographies, their full names, their role, their potential conflicts of interest and their email address. We also list former team members. However, we do not list professional biographies of former team members, as we started publishing these only in the last year.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

As far as I understand the guide for assessors, it is required that the biographies also include information on what the team members did before they joined the team: "Check that it includes the full names and short professional biographies of key editors and/or decision makers." The organization writes that they do not include this since they started publishing the biographies only in the last year, but I don't quite understand why this prevents them from adding this information.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 19/03/2024

We have alredy published our detailed CVs (as PDFs) under the respective links named "Lebenslauf" on this webpage: https://medizin-transparent.at/team/ For all current team members, they contain a list of previous employments and professional activities. I have now added "CV" to the link, as well, in case this was not clear.
The reason why we do not add CVs of former team members is that we are not in contact with most of them anymore... I hope this does not pose a problem... We have CVs for all authors of newer fact checking articles, however!

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

Thank you for the clarification. In fact, I had just overlooked the links to the CVs, sorry for that.

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

The information about the team is included on the organization's website, but the descriptions of the professional biographies could be a bit more informative. In case of most team members, the biographies only include information on what the team members studied where but nothing about previous employments.

Moreover, as mentioned above, the list of team members under the following link to the university's website is not updated: Fachbereich Medizin Transparent - Department für Evidenzbasierte Medizin und Evaluation - Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (donau-uni.ac.at)

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 13/03/2024

Also, we have now updated the list of members on the university project site: https://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/fakultaeten/gesundheit-medizin/departments/evidenzbasierte-medizin-klinische-epidemiologie/zentren-und-fachbereiche/zentrum-cochrane-oesterreich/medizin-transparent.html

Please note that Iris Hinneburg is an external member of our team and not a university employee. Therefore, she is not shown on the university page (we cannot add her, since she is not in the IT system of the university homepage)

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

Thank you. The organization complies with the standard.

Article 4.2: Financial transparency and conflicts of interest

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), organisations or parent organisations must:

Applicant

Date: 29/12/2023

We list all funding sources here, as well as the total sum of fundings received: https://medizin-transparent.at/partner-und-foerdergeber/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 19/02/2024

The information is included on the website. However, as Medizin transparent belongs to Cochrane, I'm not sure if the same information also should be given for Cochrane. The guide for assessors states: "In cases where the fact-checking operation is part of a parent organisation, these requirements apply to the latter."

I would like to ask the applicant to comment on that and, if necessary, provide the link to the respective information regarding Cochrane which in this case also should be included on the applicant's website.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 12/03/2024

Medizin transparent does neither receive money from Cochrane International nor from Cochrane Austria. Cochrane Austria is funded by Lower Austrian Health and Social Fund (Niederösterreichischen Gesundheits- und Sozialfonds (NÖGUS)) and the University for Continuing Education Krems, as stated on this webpage: https://austria.cochrane.org/de/Cochrane%20%C3%96sterreich

The respective paragraph translates to:

Cochrane Austria is funded by a grant from the Lower Austrian Health and Social Fund (NÖGUS) and with support from the University for Continuing Education Krems.

Cochrane is registered and incorporated as a charity in England. The profit from the Cochrane Library is used for administrative costs and central projects such as the development of the Cochrane websites. The individual Cochrane sub-units and groups must seek their own funding, which must not come from commercial sources. This ensures Cochrane's neutrality and avoids conflicts of interest.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

Thank you for the additional explanation. The organization complies with the standard.

Best Practices

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

I. ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY In order to apply to the EFCSN, your fact-checking operation must first meet the criteria outlined in Chapter 5.2 of the Code.

1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?

2. How many people work or volunteer in the operation and what are their roles?

3. Please list any activities besides fact-checking that your operation engages in.

4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

5. Please explain the geographical scope of your fact-checking operation and how you fit the Code’s requirement to “have a substantial and demonstrable focus on one or more of the countries of the Council of Europe, Kosovo, Belarus or Russia”.

5.b Please provide all the relevant information to demonstrate the existence of “a meaningful connection with the country or countries where the mis- and disinformation your organization fact-check originates from”.

6. Please attach a list of an average of four original fact-checks per month from the past year if this is your first time applying to the EFCSN or from the past two years if you are renewing your application.

7. Please note which policies you have had to change, if any, over the past 6 months in order to comply with the Code.

2.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website an explanation of the process used to select, research and complete investigations, including a definition of any rating systems used.

2.B. Assess the merits of the evidence found using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.

2.C. Primarily focus on topics that are in the public interest, defined here as issues that concern the welfare of society or individuals, and be willing to explain, if requested by an assessor, how various investigations fit this definition.

2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website a channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification and encourage users to send claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

2.E. Identify and include in publications, when possible, access to all evidence or other required information for a reader to replicate the verification process.

2.F. Provide evidence for every pertinent factual statement made in an investigation, relying on primary sources where possible. Set out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.

2.H. Name all sources except when their safety is at risk. In such exceptions, anonymous sources may only be included if the information they provide is corroborated by named sources or material evidence.

2.I. When quoting experts, establish their credibility in the relevant topic.

2.J. Ensure each investigation undergoes at least one round of editing by someone other than the author before publication.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

3.1.A. Be editorially free and politically independent.

3.1.B. Not endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office.

3.1.C. Not conclude any agreement or partnership with a political party or any other public relations and similar activities that could compromise the operation’s reputation for independence and impartiality

3.1.D. Not focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum.

1) Molnupiravir bei Covid-19: Kaum Schutz vor schwerer Erkrankung?

2) Ivermectin gegen Corona: Studien zufolge wohl wirkungslos

3) Rotlicht bei Wunden: Nutzen unklar

4) Amalgam: Zahnfüllung schädlich oder nicht?

5) Zahnpasta mit Fluorid: eher unbedenklich

6) Misteltherapie bei Krebs fragwürdig

7) CBD für besseren Schlaf? Wirkbelege fehlen

8) Vitamin D: wahrscheinlich kein Schutz vor Corona

9) Mundspülung Linola sept: Corona-Schutz nicht plausibel

10) Viruprotect: Unwirksamer Erkältungsspray gegen Viren

3.1.E. Not employ anyone who holds a salaried and/or prominent position in a political party, government, state or public company under the direct control of a political party or government.

3.1.F. Explicitly address in publications any reasonable conflict of interest or political bias, including from experts or organisations cited.

3.1.H. Have internal policies that bar employees from accepting in a professional context any gifts, favours, or services with advantageous conditions that go beyond common social and courtesy items, and have procedures in place to take action if they do.

3.1.I. Make available and easily accessible on their website these and any other non-partisanship policies (See template in Annex 3)

3.1.J. Only advocate for issues that are relevant to the mission of fact-checking and are compatible with a reputation for independence and impartiality. Organisations that engage in advocacy must set out public guidelines on how they adhere to these standards.

3.2.A. Obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.

3.2.B. Take measures to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny.

3.2.C. Be restrictive, respectful and considerate when mentioning or identifying minors and make efforts to protect their privacy.

3.2.D. Anonymise any personal information that could allow the harassment of people (i.e. at least partially concealing telephone numbers, IDs or passports, bank account numbers, email addresses…).

3.2.E. When appropriate and possible, a right-of-reply should be offered to any named person or organisation who is the source of the inaccurate claim and/or is the subject of significant criticism or allegations.

3.2.F. Put in place measures that aim to address the risk of trauma or harassment experienced by staff as a result of the operation’s activities, including but not limited to providing training to prevent and identify symptoms.

3.3.A. Correct every known mistake promptly with a correction note in the same publication in which the error was made; if the error is only typographical, grammatical or stylistic, a correction note is not needed.

3.3.B. When the original publication in which the mistake was made is not editable, disseminate the correction in the same format and channel as the original so that as far as possible users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.

3.3.E. Make available and easily accessible on their websites a corrections policy and a record of the corrections published over the previous year in the first application for EFCSN membership and of the previous two years upon renewal.

3.3.F. Include in their corrections policy, available and easily accessible on their websites, a detailed account of how they assess requests for corrections.

3.3.G. Offer audiences direct channels to request a correction, within the corrections policy on their website.

3.3.I. Undergo an internal and documented annual review of published corrections to determine whether methodological and procedural changes should be made to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

3.3.H. Inform audiences of the possibility of submitting a complaint to the EFCSN under the terms of article 6 with a link to the complaint form.

4.1.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement that sets out the applicant’s organisational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

4.1.B. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organisation. People or entities holding over 5% of the shares must be disclosed (see template in Annex 4).

4.1.C. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the governance of the operation and/or the parent organisation (see template in Annex 5).

4.1.D. Provide proof of the ownership, legal status and governance of the organisation to the external assessors

4.1.E. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the identity of the editors or decision makers behind the operation, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the positions held by all staff involved in the fact-checking operation’s editorial output, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.G. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement setting out the operation’s mission, values and internal guidelines in place to protect its independence.

4.1.H. Make available and easily accessible on their website the organisation’s bylaws, understood as the rules or statutes that govern the members of an organisation.

4.2.A. Disclose all income sources contributing 1% or 5.000 euros (whichever the higher), from the most recent annual accounts when joining and the last two annual accounts when renewing membership, to external assessors and the Governance Body

4.2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website an updated declaration of all unpaid significant commitments made to other organisations (see Annex 9).

4.2.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website goods and services they receive from external sources, including paid subscriptions or free access to tools, software and/or advertising, that make a material difference to their finances (5% of net income).

4.2.H. Make available and easily accessible on or from their website the full annual accounts of their organisation for each year since joining the EFCSN.