Cited by 154Misinformation and Its ImpactsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesLibrary Science and Information Literacy

The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News: A Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Machete, Paul, Turpin, Marita·2020·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-45002-1_20

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals who engaged in critical thinking while using social media were less likely to be influenced by misleading information.

    “Individuals who engaged in critical thinking while using social media were less likely to be influenced by misleading information, highlighting the importance of developing critical thinking skills in the digital age (Machete and Turpin, 2020).”

    From The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Machete and Turpin, 2020

    The Discussion of Findings says a lack of critical thinking prevented readers from distinguishing accurate from false information, and the Conclusion says that lack could be linked to difficulty identifying fake news. The review supports the importance of critical thinking, including in the context of online news, but does not report the claimed comparison between social-media users who engaged in critical thinking and those who did not. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Howlett, B.: What evidence-based practice is and why it matters. In: Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: An Interprofessional Approach, pp. 5–30 (2014)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Machete, P., & Turpin, M.
Affiliations
University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Turpin, Marita
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2020
Volume
LNCS-12067
Issue
Part II
Pages
235-246
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W3016058652
Cited by
154
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
37.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
critical thinking, fake news, misinformation detection, information literacy, online news credibility, source evaluation, media literacy education

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