An independent press is a cornerstone of democracy, so it is wrong for journalists to allow their sources to copy-check stories. This argument – the topic of a recent Guardian article by the chief online editor at Nature, Ananyo Bhattacharya – has intrinsic appeal because it categorically upholds press freedom. Comments on the article, however, and the blog that inspired it, indicate that many people strongly disagree with this principle when it comes to science reporting.

If journalists were to allow governments or companies to vet their stories, it would surely destroy the credibility of the press. Why should science be treated differently?

Science is different for four reasons, one categorical, three of degree. The categorical difference is the process of peer review. Every research article in a reputable scientific journal has been through a process in which between two and five independent experts (normally anonymous) have made extensive comments.

These "reviewers" are looking for flaws and are often extremely critical. Many submissions are simply rejected, and if not, the authors must respond to the comments, often by making substantial changes to the article, for example by conducting more experiments, more analysis, or by presenting a different interpretation.

This process typically goes through two or more rounds, with the revised article returned to the reviewers for further comments.

This system of expert critical scrutiny doesn't exist for most other types of journalistic "source" – for example, statements by politicians. So in most areas journalists are the review process (or a crucial part of it), and independence is paramount. But in science journalism, the balance is shifted towards education – the difficult task of making the science digestible and interesting for the public – because the essential role of critical review has already been performed.

Of course, press releases or interviews are not peer-reviewed, but when they are based on a published article, wild claims are curbed by the mere fact that it would be so easy to check them against the article itself. Normally a glance at the abstract or discussion section of the article would suffice, though we do not know how many journalists do this.

If, however, the press release refers to work that has not been published, then journalists find themselves back in the role of critical reviewer. Most of the general public is probably unaware of this crucial distinction between peer-reviewed science and unpublished science, and press articles rarely emphasise it.

The second reason to distinguish between scientists and, for example, politicians, is that there are no organised parties, and so no "party lines". Scientists are a loose collection of individual thinkers, as difficult to herd as cats. It is an intrinsic part of our job to be critical of other scientists, whether they are friends, colleagues or strangers. Scientific journals also normally require the original data for articles to be made available to anyone requesting it.

For these reasons science could never be the source of a conspiracy, contrary to how it is sometimes portrayed.

The third reason is that scientists do not actually have much to gain, and potentially a great deal to lose, from exaggerated claims in the press. For us, readers are neither potential customers nor voters.

We do not deny that exaggerated claims sometimes occur. Scientists are human and have biases about how results should be interpreted, and face pressure from the current "impact" agenda to show how research is of immediate public importance.

However, if other scientists believe an interpretation is merely spin, then it will be blocked by peer review. It would be perilous to our reputations to reintroduce spin in a press release or interview that had been rejected in peer review, but if a journalist wants to check whether a conclusion has been approved by peer review, they should simply ask the scientist.

Most importantly, and contrary to what Bhattacharya suggests in his article, successful grant applications do not depend on media exposure. Grants, like research articles, are subject to intense peer review by other scientists, who tend to be sceptical of the media and are more likely to be biased against an applicant who has made exaggerated claims.

The fourth reason for adopting a different approach for science journalism is the immense challenge of ensuring accuracy. Though we are neuroscientists we would not be able to write with authority about all areas in neuroscience, and even within our own speciality we routinely ask several colleagues to comment on articles prior to submission for publication.

A science journalist, on the other hand, must write on a much broader range of topics on much tighter deadlines, and in a digestible way for a general readership, without the expert input that is routinely enjoyed by scientists. So it seems a Herculean task to avoid inaccuracy, misunderstandings and substantially misleading oversimplifications.

Overall, since press credibility relies on both accuracy and independence, and since the question of allowing sources to check articles (or parts of them) raises a tension between these pillars, the burning question is: where should the balance be struck?

We believe that public trust in science, and in science reporting, is harmed far more by inaccuracy than by non-independence. Contrary to Bhattacharya's claim that "the reader is not a scientist's first concern," public understanding is our overriding concern when communicating with journalists.

No doubt some journalists will object to our arguments because we are intruding upon their professional sphere. This is true – we are intruding. But to those who object, we would ask, what is your primary motivation? Is it simply to produce a story with an angle or is to communicate science accurately and accessibly?

We believe that uncurbed press freedom in science reporting, particularly in the tabloids, comes at an unacceptably high price: a price that is ultimately paid by the media consumer through a diet of inaccuracy, bias and, in some cases, fabricated embellishment. Encouraging even less dialogue between journalists and scientists is the last thing we should be doing.

Dr Petroc Sumner, Dr Frederic Boy and Dr Chris Chambers are at the School of Psychology, Cardiff University