The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control
Abstract
Gatekeeping theories have been a popular heuristic for describing information control for years, but none have attained a full theoretical status in the context of networks. This article aims to propose a theory of network gatekeeping comprised of two components:identification and salience.Network gatekeeping identification lays out vocabulary and naming foundations through the identification of gatekeepers, gatekeeping, and gatekeeping mechanisms.Network gatekeeping salience, which is built on the bases of the network identification theory, utilizes this infrastructure to understand relationships among gatekeepers and between gatekeepers and gated, the entity subjected to a gatekeeping process. Network gatekeeping salience 1Salience refers to the degree to which gatekeepers give priority to competing gated claims. proposes identifying gated and their salience to gatekeepers by four attributes: (a) their political power in relation to the gatekeeper, (b) their information production ability, (c) their relationship with the gatekeeper, and (d) their alternatives in the context of gatekeeping.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/002234336500200104 · Cited by 3,428 · cited 4×
“Information is more likely to pass gatekeeping if it is similar to the cultural preferences of society (Galtung & Ruge, 1965) Table 1 exemplifies one of the motivations to develop a theoretical framework that would better fit an information society.”
BackgroundInfluentialMoving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences
Rowley, T. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107 · Cited by 2,522
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Giles, J. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/438900a · Cited by 1,978
Cited by
Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization
Bozdag, E. (2013) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6 · Cited by 649
Networked Gatekeeping and Networked Framing on #Egypt
Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161212474472 · Cited by 580
Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age
Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/comt.12087 · Cited by 570
Bonini, T., & Gandini, A. (2019) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305119880006 · Cited by 146
The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2016) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Barzilai‐Nahon, K.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05-13
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1493-1512
- ISSN
- 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2890
- OpenAlex
- W2601331019
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 17.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.20857
- The paper
- Barzilai‐Nahon, K. (2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20857
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
