Cited by 191Misinformation and Its ImpactsLibrary Science and Information LiteracyInformation Science and Libraries

Information literacy and fake news: How the field of librarianship can help combat the epidemic of fake news

Open access
De Paor, Saoirse, Heravi, Bahareh·2020·The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Abstract

This paper studies how the field of librarianship can help counteract the phenomenon of fake news and misinformation. A literature review was conducted to identify the current themes, patterns, correlations and gaps within the existing literature on fake news, information literacy and librarianship. Findings centre on defining fake news, analysing contemporary and emerging information literacy frameworks, and outlining the current efforts and initiatives exercised by libraries to refute the spread of fake news and educate communities on how to navigate through an era of untruth and disinformation. The paper outlines effective initiatives developed by those within the Library and Information Systems (LIS) profession while highlighting considerations and recommendations as to how librarians can continue to enhance their role in the digital age and make successful contributions to the professional field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102218

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For consumers, a generalized but crucial protection mechanism involves developing the capabilities necessary for analyzing and interpreting the legitimacy of online content.

    “For consumers in their everyday lives, a rather generalized but crucial protection mechanism involves developing the capabilities necessary for analyzing and interpreting the legitimacy of online content (Bulger & Davison, 2018; De Paor & Heravi, 2020; Viviani & Pasi, 2017).”

    From Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as De Paor & Heravi, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Paor, S., & Heravi, B.
Affiliations
University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Heravi, Bahareh
Venue
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
102218
ISSN
0099-1333 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044695834
Cited by
191
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 3
FWCI
28.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Academic Librarianship (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Science and Libraries
Keywords
fake news, misinformation, disinformation, information literacy, librarianship, libraries, information literacy framework, librarian roles, digital era

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