The New Rules of Science Media Relations

The playbook for science media relations has changed — quietly but dramatically over the past several years.

Newsrooms are smaller, the volume of published research has exploded, and entire scientific fields now publish outside traditional journal systems. At the same time, new types of media are reshaping how discoveries make their way out into the world. Many of the traditional “rules” no longer apply.

After years working with scientists and research organizations navigating this landscape, a few notable shifts have emerged: it’s faster, more fragmented, and far more specialized. 

Preprints Are Now Part of the Media Cycle

For years, the conventional wisdom was simple: don’t pitch preprints.

Guidance from groups like ASAPbio reflected a broad consensus across institutions and communications offices that research should only be actively promoted once it was peer reviewed. But the reality of the media cycle has shifted. 

Today, reporters are telling us something very different. If they hear about a study months (or even years) after it first appeared as a preprint, the story is old news.

That doesn’t mean every preprint should be pitched — especially ones in very preliminary stages. But it does mean communicators should be thinking more strategically about when a piece of research becomes newsworthy. For some projects, this now happens much earlier than it once did.

Embargoed Pitching is the Rule, not the Exception

Another major shift relates to the pace and capacity of modern newsrooms. 

Over the past decade, many science desks have experienced layoffs, consolidation, or shrinking staff. At the same time, the volume of research output has increased exponentially. This means reporters have less time and fewer resources to pursue stories.

One practical consequence: day-of pitching rarely works anymore. If a journalist receives a pitch in the morning of an announcement or paper publication, they typically do not have the time needed to read the paper, interview experts, and produce a story before the news cycle moves on.

Embargoed pitching is advantageous across nearly all media verticals — and absolutely essential for top-tier outlets.

In our experience:

• Several days of embargo are rarely enough
• Two weeks of lead time is ideal
• Top-tier outlets often need even longer

The goal is simple: give reporters the time they need to do their jobs well. Without that runway, even strong stories can be missed.

AI Research Is Rewriting the Publication Model

Another major change in science media relations comes from a field that doesn’t follow traditional publishing norms: AI and machine learning.

Unlike many areas of biomedical science, AI research often appears first in peer-reviewed conference proceedings rather than journals. Major conferences such as NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR function as the primary venues for new work.

For journalists and communications teams, this creates several challenges:

• Conference papers may not undergo the same review timelines as journals
• The publication moment can become tied to conference schedules rather than journal releases
• Reporters may not recognize conference papers as legitimate research outputs

At the same time, the media ecosystem around AI is expanding rapidly. Much of the conversation now happens in:

• Specialized technology outlets
• Independent newsletters and Substacks
• Industry-focused publications

At Stellate, we’ve been helping reporters understand AI/ML publishing norms, while simultaneously leveraging alternative and specialized media like Substack.

Don’t Sleep on the Trades

I will die on this hill — over and over again. 

One of the most persistent misconceptions is the idea that only top-tier media coverage matters. While I enjoy the thrill of snagging a ‘white whale’ as much as the next PR pro, top-tier outlets cover only a tiny fraction of the world’s research output.

Trade publications exist for a reason. They serve specialized audiences who care deeply about learning new research and understanding the impact it has — no matter how incremental.

In many cases, these outlets offer something even more valuable than mainstream media:

• domain expertise and accurate coverage
• audiences who actually care about the topic
• expert reporters who follow science closely over time

Similarly, podcasts and newsletters have become increasingly influential in shaping scientific conversations. These channels may not always carry the prestige of national media, but they often reach exactly the audiences that matter, and can help secure mainstream coverage down the road.

THE BEST TOP-TIER COVERAGE ISN’T PITCHED. It’s been picked up because of strong, consistent storytelling and that often starts in the trades.

The New Rules of a More Fragmented, Modern Media Landscape

Taken together, these shifts point to a broader reality: The science media ecosystem is more fragmented, faster-moving, and more specialized. There are still extraordinarily talented journalists covering the science ecosystem, but the environment they operate in has changed.

For scientists and institutions thinking about media engagement today, that means:

• Understanding when research becomes newsworthy (not just when it is published)
• Giving reporters enough lead time 
• Recognizing that different fields publish in different ways
• Valuing specialized media alongside top-tier and mainstream outlets

The goal of media relations has never been to simply chase headlines — it’s about connecting important ideas to the people who want or need to hear them. In today’s landscape, that requires a strategy that is both broader and more flexible than ever before.