CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81E-Government and Public ServicesAdministrative Law and GovernancePublic Policy and Administration Research

Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments

Open access
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G., Piotrowski, Suzanne J., Van Ryzin, Gregg G.·2020·Government Information Quarterly
DOI 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Transparency is popularly believed to enhance the public's trust in government, yet experimental studies have found mixed results. One explanation is that public trust may respond more positively to a kind of “latent transparency” in which citizens highly value the mere potential for open access to government information, even if they may have more negative reactions when presented with the particular content of actual government information, documents, or data. To test this hypothesis, we designed two survey experiments in which samples of US adults were primed with general information about the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or the existence of open government data. Compared to controls, we find that awareness of FOIA rights and requirements (latent transparency) tended to be unrelated, or even slightly negatively related, to trust of government agencies, contrary to our expectations. Our findings, combined with prior evidence, suggest that—even in the case of latent transparency—the popular belief in transparency's positive effects on citizen trust needs a more critical examination. Implications for the theory and practice of transparency are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

8 of 34 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Experimental studies on transparency and trust have produced mixed results.

    “yet experimental studies have found mixed results.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “Curiously, the empirical results have often been mixed, with greater transparency sometimes associated with more trust, sometimes less trust, and sometimes with little or no effect on trust at all (Cucciniello, Porumbescu, & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2017).”
    • Also stated in: § 2. Freedom of information, transparency, and trust · plain
      “The findings of these experiments have been mixed, with effects conditional on the type of respondents and the substantive topic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cucciniello, Porumbescu, & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2017 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The paper's findings resemble some prior results on manifest transparency and trust.

    “These findings mirror some of what has been found with respect to manifest transparency and trust (e.g., Cucciniello et al., 2017;Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cucciniello et al., 2017 source

      The section on transparency outcomes reports prior findings on transparency and trust in government, including positive survey findings and mixed or negative experimental findings. Our copy does not identify those findings specifically as concerning “manifest transparency,” so it supports the broader comparison but not that qualifier. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017 source
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, the FOIA priming effect on trust was weakest for the IRS among the three agencies.

    “The effect of the FOIA awareness priming was weakest for the IRS, which as noted has been shown to be a relatively disfavored agency in the eyes of the public.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, the negative effect of FOIA priming on trust was most pronounced in the HHS subsample, where exposure to the FOIA prime was associated with significantly less trust in HHS.

    “the effect of the FOIA treatment appears most pronounced within the HHS subsample; in other words, participants who were exposed to the FOIA prime and then the description of HHS had significantly less trust in this agency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, the placebo PRA prime had a negative but statistically non-significant coefficient on trust.

    “Interestingly, the coefficient for the placebo treatment (the PRA prime) is also negative, although not significant statistically.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 28
  • May combine two claims. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Because citizens generally hold negative views of government, exposure to more information about government may exacerbate negativity bias even when the information is positive.

    “Relatedly, even when only positive information is provided, citizens are known to have a generally negative view of government; thus, actually being exposed to more information (i.e., more transparency) about government may exacerbate this negativity bias (Marvel, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Marvel, 2015 source

      The Abstract (page unavailable) supports the premise that citizens can hold negative implicit views of public-sector organizations. But the H2 section (page unavailable) says favorable performance information attenuates, rather than exacerbates, the influence of those views; the H3 section says that benefit may be short-lived. The paper does not equate greater transparency with worsening negativity bias. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    FOI laws have been enacted in many countries and have been found to increase government transparency in several countries.

    “FOI Acts have been enacted across the globe and have been found to effectively increase government transparency in several countries (e.g.Worthy, John, & Vannoni, 2017;Spac, Voda and Zagrapan 2018;Grimmelikhuijsen, John, Meijer, & Worthy, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Worthy, John, & Vannoni, 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Spac, Voda and Zagrapan 2018 source
    • cites Grimmelikhuijsen, John, Meijer, & Worthy, 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A systematic review found that experiments and case studies tended to show negative or mixed transparency-trust findings, while survey studies more often showed positive relationships, suggesting possible methodological bias.

    “However, in a systematic review of the literature on transparency, Cucciniello et al. (2017) found a pattern suggesting a potential methodological bias in favor of a positive relationship.Experiments and case studies have tended to produce negative or mixed findings, while research conducted using survey data have more often shown a positive relationship.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cucciniello et al. (2017) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Survey research has found positive correlations between manifest transparency and trust.

    “Survey research has found positive correlations between manifest transparency and trust (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006;Im, Cho, Porumbescu, and Park 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006 source
    • cites Im, Cho, Porumbescu, and Park 2014 source

      The Findings section reports a positive association between perceived government performance and trust, and a positive moderating effect of e-government use on the relationship between Internet use and trust. Neither the Findings nor the Models and Measures passages identify or test manifest transparency, so our copy does not establish the claimed correlation. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A systematic review by Cucciniello et al. found that the existing literature generally suggests greater transparency results in less corruption.

    “Conversely, in a cross-disciplinary, systematic review of the transparency literature, Cucciniello et al. (2017) found that the existing literature in general”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cucciniello et al. (2017) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    FOIA requests have been shown to have a significant positive effect on government transparency.

    “Also various studies have shown that FOIA requests have a significant positive effect on government transparency (e.g.Worthy et al., 2017;Spáč et al. 2018;Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Worthy et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Spáč et al. 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, the FOIA prime did not significantly affect perceived openness of government, and the direction was slightly negative.

    “was not significantly affected by the FOIA prime (see Appendix C).However, as with the results for trust, the FOIA treatment effect on perceived openness was slightly negative and thus in the opposite direction from our theoretical expectation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comparing the two studies, the FOIA prime in Study 1 had small significant negative effects, while all treatment groups in Study 2 showed null effects.

    “It shows the small negative, yet significant, effects of the FOIA prime from Study 1, while at the same time highlighting the null effects for all treatment groups in Study 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, separate analyses for each federal agency found no significant treatment effects on trust, except that the FOIA replication prime had a marginally significant negative effect (p < .10) on trust in NASA and the CDC.

    “Again, there are no significant effects on trust, although the FOIA prime (replication) has a marginally significant negative effect (p < .10) on trust of both NASA and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, the Data.gov prime had a weak negative association with trust in federal agencies that was not statistically significant.

    “And the Data.govprime is weakly negatively associated with trust, but again not significant statistically.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The modified FOIA prime focused on the requestor model had no effect on trust in federal agencies in Study 2, and even this more positively framed prime did not increase trust in government.

    “The modified FOIA prime, which focused on the requestor model, also has no effect at all on trust of federal agencies.”
    • Also stated in: § 6. Discussion and implications · plain
      “That being said, even a more positively framed FOIA prime which focused on the requestor model, which we tried in Study 2, had no positive effect on trust in government.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, the original FOIA prime had a very small negative association with trust in federal agencies that was not statistically significant.

    “The original FOIA prime has a slightly negative association with trust, but the relationship is miniscule in magnitude and not at all significant statistically.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    An experiment using air pollution maps found transparency affected less knowledgeable and less trusting citizens but not others.

    “For instance, Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer (2014) used air pollution maps to probe transparency and found that they did have an effect on some citizens (particularly less knowledgeable and less trusting citizens) but not on others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer (2014) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Disclosing decision-making elements that highlight a fair process, such as neutrality and voice, enhances citizens' trust.

    “Porumbescu and Grimmelikhuijsen (2017) found that disclosing elements of decisionmaking that highlight a fair process, such as neutrality and voice, enhances citizens' trust.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Porumbescu and Grimmelikhuijsen (2017)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to various transparency primes and a no-prime control.

    “Fig. 2 provides a summary of our second experimental design, in which we again randomized participants to various primes (to activate awareness of latent transparency) and to a no-prime control condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A cross-national study by Bauhr and Grimes found that in highly corrupt countries, increased transparency tends to produce resignation rather than indignation.

    “For example, Bauhr and Grimes (2014) cross-national study found that”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bauhr and Grimes (2014) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, the perceived openness measure combined two items and had high internal consistency (alpha = 0.88).

    “The sum of these items (alpha = 0.88) thus provides a secondary dependent variable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to a FOIA prime, a no-prime control, or a placebo prime.

    “At the start, participants were randomly assigned to either: 1) a FOIA prime, 2) a no-prime control condition, or 3) a placebo prime.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, the main trust measure combined two ANES items and had high internal consistency (alpha = 0.91).

    “These two items come from the American National Election Studies pilot study of improved ways to measure trust in government (Gershtenson & Plane, 2007).The sum of these items (alpha = 0.91) constitutes our main dependent variable or outcome of interest.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gershtenson & Plane, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 1, after the prime, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three federal agency descriptions.

    “After being randomly assigned to the FOIA prime (treatment), the no-prime (control) condition, or the PRA prime (placebo), respondents were again randomly assigned to one of three federal agency descriptions:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Perceptions of procedural justice are important to trust judgments in policing, courts, and public administration.

    “Indeed, the importance of perceptions of procedural justice to the formation of trust judgments has been well demonstrated in the context of policing and the courts (e.g.Tyler, 2006Tyler, , 2013)), as well as for trust of public administrators more generally (Van Ryzin, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Tyler, 2006 source
    • cites Tyler, 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Van Ryzin, 2011 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Certain types of transparency, especially those focusing on reasons behind policy decisions, can increase trust.

    “de Fine Licht, Naurin, Esaiasson, & Gilljam (2014) found that certain types of transparency can indeed increase trust, especially when they focus on the reasons behind a policy decision.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites de Fine Licht, Naurin, Esaiasson, & Gilljam (2014)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Digital open government websites have become a common government policy to increase transparency.

    “Such digital open government websites have become a common government policy to increase transparency (e.g.Lourenço, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lourenço, 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 1, the order of experiments in the omnibus survey was fully randomized.

    “The order of experiments in the omnibus survey was fully randomized.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationcitation

    Exposure to actual government information may lead citizens to react negatively, as prior research suggests.

    “Indeed, when citizens are exposed to such government information-manifest transparency-they may even react negatively, as some of the prior research suggests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The traditional ANES response options are too coarse and lack balance, for example there is no 'just about never' to offset 'just about always'.

    “The answer categories have been criticized because it is too crude with only three answer categories and the categories are not counterbalanced.For instance, there is no”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gershtenson & Plane, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The six federal agencies were shown in a random order to reduce order effects.

    “The order of presentation of the agencies was randomized to reduce order effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 2, a larger and more representative online sample was used than in Study 1.

    “We also employed a larger and more representative online sample in this second experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that most citizens view actual democratic debates and compromises as unsatisfying or distasteful.

    “Indeed, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's empirical evidence from survey data and other sources finds that most citizens view the actual debates and compromises involved in the democratic process to be unsatisfying, if not distasteful.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hibbing and Theiss-Morse

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Transparency's effects on trust appear contingent on policy domain, prior attitudes, and presentation format.

    “Effects appear to be contingent on policy domain (de Fine Licht, 2014), prior attitudes (Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2014), and even presentation format (Porumbescu et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites de Fine Licht, 2014 source
    • cites Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2014 source
    • cites Porumbescu et al., 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, the sample was disproportionately female (83%) and under 40 (60%).

    “As Table 1 shows, participants were disproportionately female (83%) and under 40 in age (60%), which reflects the general profile of the Qualtrics research panel.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The wording of the trust question came from the standard American National Election Studies trust item.

    “The question wording (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites American National Election Studies (ANES)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is difficult to separate the principle of transparency from the specific information and cues that make up manifest transparency treatments.

    “In other words, it remains difficult to disentangle the principle of transparency from the bundle of information and other cues that typically make up manifest transparency treatments-the specific data, websites, reports, or other information about government-that are tested in much of this experimental work.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Study 2 used quotas for sex, age, race, and US region in order to make the sample more representative.

    “In contrast to Study 1, we set quotas by sex, age, race, and region of the United States to ensure a more representative sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's stealth democracy thesis holds that most citizens do not desire direct democracy or regular participation in politics.

    “Our concept of latent transparency in inspired by the work of Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) on”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Citizens value democracy as a check on abuse of power even if they do not want to participate themselves.

    “Thus, citizens value democracy as a check on the abuse of power, even while not wanting to participate in the democratic process themselves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
36 of 36

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many media, political, citizen and advocacy actors treat greater government transparency as almost automatically increasing trust in government.

    “Transparency is popularly believed to enhance the public's trust in government”
    “Media, politicians, citizens and pressure groups treat more government transparency as a solution that will near-automatically lead to more trust in government ().”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    If government is more transparent, there will be an open culture with less room for cover-ups, secrets and mistakes.

    “The basic assumption is that if government is more transparent there will be an 'open culture' with less room for cover-ups, secrets and mistakes (e.g.Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    FOIA serves as a legal backbone for transparency in many countries.

    “We chose to prime awareness of FOIA since this is a legal backbone to undergird transparency in many countries across the globe (REF).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The priming questions successfully activated latent transparency, meaning awareness of FOIA or Data.gov, among respondents.

    “After receiving the FOIA or Data.gov primes (treatments) or the noprime (control) condition, respondents were asked to rate their level of trust of six federal agencies using a similar trust question and scale as in Study 1.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Study 2 had sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful effects of the primes on trust.

    “The results indicate that there are no significant effects on trust of federal agencies for any of the primes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The summative scale of six agency trust ratings validly measures trust in federal agencies.

    “For our main dependent variable, we constructed a summative scale of the six agency trust ratings.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The six selected federal agencies adequately represent the range of federal agencies for testing trust effects.

    “These agencies were chosen to include the three agencies from Study 1, plus an additional three agencies representing a range of functions.”
7 of 7

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 1.87reported p = .393 · recomputed p = .393

    “i2(2) = 1.87, p = .393”

  • Consistentχ²(16) = 16.03reported p = .451 · recomputed p = .451

    “i2(16) = 16.03,p = .451”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 3.03reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .220

    “i2(2) = 3.03, p = .220”

  • Consistentχ²(8) = 4.81reported p = .777 · recomputed p = .778

    “i2(8) = 4.81, p = .777”

  • Consistentχ²(14) = 15.68reported p = .334 · recomputed p = .333

    “i2(14) = 15.68,p = .334”

  • Consistentχ²(3) = 0.737reported p = .864 · recomputed p = .864

    “i2(3) = 0.737, p = .864”

  • ConsistentF(3, 1505) = 0.714reported p = .543 · recomputed p = .544

    “F(3, 1505) = 0.714, p = .543”

  • Consistentχ²(18) = 15.775reported p = .608 · recomputed p = .608

    “i2(18) = 15.775,p = .608”

  • Consistentχ²(3) = 0.337reported p = .953 · recomputed p = .953

    “i2(3) = 0.337, p = .953”

  • Consistentχ²(6) = 3.199reported p = .783 · recomputed p = .783

    “i2(6) = 3.199, p = .783”

10 of 10

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Study 1 placebo effect is described as nonsignificant despite a significant result

    Minor

    The text says the PRA placebo coefficient is not statistically significant, but the first model in Table 2 reports p = 0.047, below the table's stated 0.05 threshold.

  • Study 2 model reports more observations than participants

    Minor

    Study 2 is described as having 1503 participants, but its first main-results model reports 1506 observations. The reported model count exceeds the stated sample size.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. de Fine Licht, 2014, When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship, Governance, 27, 111, 10.1111/gove.12021 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Piotrowski, Suzanne J.
ORCID
Venue
Government Information Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
101497
ISSN
0740-624X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497
OpenAlex
W3043021176
Cited by
81
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
36.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Government Information Quarterly (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
public trust in government, Freedom of Information Act, open government data, government information access

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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