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 accessOverview
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This is what Zubiaga and Ji (2014) found in their study, suggesting that verification work performed by crowd workers tends to favour selection of true labels for inaccurate information.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga and Ji 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Annotation of credibility perceptions has also been done in previous work, determining how credible claims appear to people (Mitra and Gilbert 2015;Zubiaga and Ji 2014); this could be useful in the context of rumours to identify those that are likely to be misleading for people; however, it has not yet been applied in the context of rumours.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga and Ji 2014
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,351
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Book Review: The Psychology of Attitudes
Chakravarti, D., Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151869 · Cited by 7,173
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
An overview of content analysis
Stemler, S. (2020) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/z6fm-2e34 · Cited by 3,017
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Information credibility on twitter
Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2011) · Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1963405.1963500 · Cited by 2,593
Goldman, A. I. (1999) · doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001 · Cited by 2,206
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Fallis D (2004) On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives. Libr Trends 52(3):463–487
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. S. (2017) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 · Cited by 2,745
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 862
Self-citationTucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Wong Sak Hoi, G., & Tolmie, P. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150989 · Cited by 722
Self-citationFake news detection: A hybrid CNN-RNN based deep learning approach
Nasir, J. A., Khan, O. S., & Varlamis, I. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management Data Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jjimei.2020.100007 · Cited by 568
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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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
