I’d always worked directly with my editor. We’d go back and forth, smooth out phrases, maybe tweak a section or two, and then the piece would move forward to the publication phase.

But one day, she said she wanted to pass the copy to a fact-checker first. Admittedly, in the era of AI, everything needs an extra human eye. However, the process wasn’t what I expected. It completely slowed down my piece.

What I thought was a clean draft suddenly came back with lots of questions; small details that didn’t quite line up, a date that needed confirming, a quote that couldn’t be verified the way I’d presented it and a request for contact information for the expert sources listed in the article. This was enough to stop the piece in its tracks.

It was the first time I realized that what I submitted was being read and tested before it was published, and I wasn’t really prepared.

What should have been a straightforward edit turned into two weeks of back-and-forth. I had to retrace sources, confirm details, and rework sections that would have been fine if I’d caught the issues earlier. None of that time was billable.

Both the publication and payment dates shifted. That’s the part no one talks about: fact-checking mistakes don’t just affect accuracy, they affect cash flow. There’s no longer room for error.

When a Fact Checker Steps in, the Standard Changes

More publications are working with fact-checkers now, either in-house or freelance. Their job isn’t to “improve” your piece, it’s to verify it line by line. They’re checking names, titles, dates, timelines, quotes, and statistics, in my experience, often down to the smallest comma. If something doesn’t match, it doesn’t just get quietly corrected. It comes back to you, and sometimes, it escalates quickly.

Not every consequence is obvious. You might still get paid for the piece even if you cannot prove your sources, but behind the scenes, things shift. Your work may get routed through stricter checks, editors may build in extra time for your pieces, and you may stop being the “easy yes” when assignments come up.

Editors don’t usually announce that they’ve lost confidence, they adjust quietly. And in freelance writing, being easy to work with is part of what keeps our income steady.

What I Changed Immediately

After that experience, I stopped treating fact-checking as something I do at the end and built it into how I write.

I verify details as I go. If I include a date, statistic, or claim, I confirm it right then instead of assuming I’ll catch it later. Whenever I reach out to experts for a quote, I cc my editor in those conversations so she can be more confident in my process. Every key detail in my draft has something I can point back to quickly, no guessing, or digging after submission.

I double-check even the details that seem too small to matter. Names, job titles, locations are the first things a fact-checker will flag. And before I submit, I step away, even briefly. Coming back with fresh eyes catches more than a rushed final read ever will. None of this is complicated. But it’s the difference between a clean submission and a time-consuming fix.

Fixing mistakes after submission is unpaid work, and I’ve found that “mostly accurate” isn’t accurate enough. Small errors create bigger doubts than you expect. Unfortunately, editors notice patterns, even if they don’t say anything.

Now I see fact checking as part of getting paid consistently. Because the writers who submit clean, reliable work get rehired and are trustworthy. And that consistency matters more than any single paycheck.

It translates to protecting your time, reputation, and income, before anyone else has to question it.
BIO – Millicent Mwololo Lagat is a writer who focuses on stories that matter. She enjoys the ins, outs and in-betweens of the writing world. https://muckrack.com/millicent-mwololo 

ID 8298008 © Wd2007 | Dreamstime.com