Cited by 125Misinformation and Its ImpactsPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationComplex Network Analysis Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tweet, but verify: epistemic study of information verification on Twitter

Open access
Zubiaga, Arkaitz, Ji, Heng·2014·Social Network Analysis and Mining

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13278-014-0163-y

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fallis D (2004) On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives. Libr Trends 52(3):463–487

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–124 of 124

Metadata

Authors
Zubiaga, A., & Ji, H.
Affiliations
  • Queens College, CUNY (US)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Zubiaga, Arkaitz
Venue
Social Network Analysis and Mining
Published
2014-03-25
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1869-5450 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-5469
OpenAlex
W2110785023
Cited by
125
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
29.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Network Analysis and Mining (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (CAREER, W911NF-09-2-0053, 0953149)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-13-2-0041, FA8750, W911NF-09-2-0053)
  • Army Research Laboratory (Cooperative Agreement No. W911NF-09-2-0053, W911NF, No. W911NF-09-2-0053, W911NF-09-2-0053)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
fact-checking, Twitter, perceived credibility, hoaxes, misinformation, Hurricane Sandy, epistemology, trust in information, corroboration, author verification, natural disasters

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