[openknot]

I'm not the same commenter, but I completely agree from previous experience in journalism. Many journalists who write about research findings are in the same publications who publish general news (e.g. national politics). So, many science journalists are held to newsroom policies where they can't share drafts with sources before publication, to avoid bias. This is highly relevant for sharing drafts with a politician, but much less relevant for sharing articles with a scientist.

Some newsrooms do have exceptions for scientific expertise, or have wiggle room saying that experts can verify whether quotes or sections of the article are accurate, versus the whole draft. This is a decent compromise if a publication allows it, though I'm personally in favor of having a more trusting relationship between journalists and scientists for typical articles on research findings (unless the article is investigative).

Well-funded magazines (e.g. The New Yorker) also get around this by having fact-checkers with strong scientific backgrounds. This is probably the best solution for editorial independence that avoids sharing drafts, but there's not a lot of money in media and writing as-is, so it's not a realistic solution for the vast majority of publications (especially when even big magazines have been cutting funding for their fact-checking teams, shifting more responsibility to the editors/journalists for accuracy).