Start with the version of record
Collect the paper, report, preprint, or talk; abstract and full text; figures or slides you are allowed to reuse; dataset or code links when public; corrections, updates, or later versions; disclosure and funding statements; a stable DOI or canonical URL; and the expert's notes about scope and uncertainty.
Confirm which version is current. A conference talk may describe preliminary results that changed before publication. A preprint is not the same as peer review. State the status.
Build a claim card
For every possible video, complete a claim card with the research question, evidence type, result, population and setting, uncertainty, overclaim guardrail, source, and speaker role.
Evidence type means experiment, observation, review, model, archival analysis, or expert interpretation. Speaker role means author, practitioner, commentator, or independent expert.
If the card cannot be completed, the clip is not ready.
Map the source into six short-video jobs
A research-question video explains the problem and why the question matters. Prompt: “What precise question did this work try to answer, and what was missing from prior evidence?”
A method video shows how the evidence was produced. Prompt: “What did you measure or compare, and which design choice matters most for interpreting the result?”
A result video states the narrow finding. Prompt: “What did the study find in this population, and which word would make the claim too strong?”
A limitation video explains the most decision-relevant uncertainty. Prompt: “What can this design not establish, and what evidence would improve confidence?”
A disagreement video represents the field fairly. Prompt: “Where would a credible expert disagree, with the data, method, interpretation, or implication?”
An implication video translates without prescribing beyond the evidence. Prompt: “What should a practitioner consider now, and what action would still be premature?”
These clips can stand alone, but the series provides a more complete path through the work.
A worked example
Suppose a paper reports an association between a workplace practice and lower turnover. The result clip should not say, “This practice keeps employees from leaving.”
A claim card might show observational evidence; organizations from one sector and period; an association, not proven causation; possible differences in management quality; and a practical implication to investigate the practice rather than guarantee a result.
The short answer becomes: “In this sample, organizations reporting more of the practice also reported lower turnover. Because the study is observational, we cannot say the practice caused the difference. The result is a reason to test the mechanism, not a universal retention prescription.”
That is concise without pretending the design did more than it did.
Use the talk to recover judgment
A talk often contains material absent from the formal article: why the question was chosen, what failed during the method, how the team interpreted an unexpected result, and which misconception appeared after publication.
Use those details to enrich the interview. Do not cite the speaker's memory where the paper provides the authoritative number.
REC Content Studio can research public links and supplied notes, generate an expert-focused question path, guide a solo on-camera recording, transcribe the answers, and suggest grounded highlights. It does not appraise study quality, verify citations, or peer review the interpretation.
Cut complete scientific thoughts
A short research video needs the direct answer, the evidence type, the main boundary, and the source or next step.
Keep qualifiers that change meaning. “In this sample,” “associated with,” and “under these conditions” are not filler.
Use the caption to link the paper, identify its status, and provide the full citation. Do not use the caption to restore a caveat that the video contradicts.
Visual and accessibility rules
Use figures only with permission and enough resolution. Explain axes, units, comparison groups, and uncertainty visually and aloud. Avoid highlighting one bar while hiding the scale.
W3C recommends captions, transcripts, and descriptions of essential visual information. Provide the exact quotation or statistic in text when viewers may need to inspect it.
Uncertainty needs context
Research on uncertainty communication does not show that caveats automatically increase trust. Effects vary by audience, issue, and framing. The National Academies describes science communication as a system involving goals, audience, content, communicator, channel, and context.
Explain the source of uncertainty and its effect on the decision. “The estimate is imprecise, so the direction is plausible but the size is unclear” is more useful than “results may vary.”
Honest limitations
Short video favors one claim and can distort the relative importance of a result. Some research requires a long-form article, table, code, or specialist discussion.
High-stakes health, legal, safety, and policy claims need current primary sources and qualified review. A public clip is not individualized advice.
Do not upload unpublished manuscripts, participant data, confidential peer review, or restricted slides to external AI tools without permission.
Paper-to-video checklist
Before publishing, check the current version and stable source, one job per clip, completed claim card, named evidence type, preserved population and setting, uncertainty and overclaim guardrail, figure permissions, captions and visual descriptions, expert review, and corrections plan.
A short video should be an accurate door into the work, not a replacement for it. REC Content Studio can help the expert record the explanation; the paper remains the source the audience should be able to inspect.