The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tracking and Characterizing the Competition of Fact Checking and Misinformation: Case Studies
Open accessAbstract
Massive amounts of misinformation have been spreading over social media during the 2016 U.S. election season, causing wide public concern about our information ecosystem. How does fact checking compete with misinformation for user attentions? How do misinformation and fact checking differ in their spreading patterns? And what strategies are used by social bots to promote the spread of misinformation? In this paper, we address these research questions by analyzing datasets collected by Hoaxy. We answer the first question by conducting: 1) a survival analysis shows that about 70% of claims will be fact-checked in one week and about 800 tweets with claim links are posted during this period, on average and 2) a cross-correlation analysis shows that the sharing of fact-checking articles typically lags that of misinformation by about one day. Regarding the second question, we answer it from three points of view: 1) we find that false claims can become more popular than the corresponding debunking; 2) when looking at the distribution of types of tweets, we find that fact checking tends to spread in a conversational way; and 3) bot behavior analysis shows that the most active accounts sharing misinformation behave more like social bots. To better understand how social bots spread misinformation, we conduct case studies to answer the third question. By presenting strategies such as the production of a large number of original tweets, the alternating and hijacking of hashtags, and the injection of content into conversations, we demonstrate how social bots take advantages of the recommendation features of Twitter to amplify the spread of misinformation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Research has demonstrated that misinformation spreads more widely, rapidly, and deeply than fact-checks or truthful information on social media (Burel et al., 2021; Mendoza et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2018; Vosoughi et al., 2018).”
From "Just Asking Questions": Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as Shao et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 1×
“[36].”
Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization
Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871 · Cited by 981 · cited 1×
“classification by supervised learning, including a large set of features, such as network, temporal, language, and sentiment signals [18].”
BackgroundDisinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election
Ferrara, E. (2017) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v22i8.8005 · Cited by 524
Disinformation on the Web: Impact, Characteristics, and Detection of Wikipedia Hoaxes
Kumar, S., West, R., & Leskovec, J. (2016) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2872427.2883085 · Cited by 310
Hannak, A., Margolin, D., Keegan, B., & Weber, I. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14555 · Cited by 90
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- 10.7717/peerj-cs.87 · DOI
- conover, 2011, Political polarization on Twitter, Proc 5th Int AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 11), 89
- 10.1145/2872518.2889302 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.5408 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.1116502109 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1185231 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1772690.1772842 · DOI
- 10.1145/1772690.1772751 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1963192.1963301 · DOI
- 10.1038/srep09452 · DOI
- 10.1109/CC.2015.7366237 · DOI
- ratkiewicz, 2011, Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media, Proc AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media, 297
- 10.1145/2983323.2983697 · DOI
- wu, 2016, Mining misinformation in social media, Big Data of Complex Networks, 125
- declerck, 2015, Ontological modelling of rumors, Proc 12th EUROLAN Summer School RUMOUR Workshop, 3
- 10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0111-y · DOI
- 10.1145/2818717 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0196087 · DOI
- howell, 2013, Digital wildfires in a hyperconnected world, Global Risks
- 10.1145/2872518.2890098 · DOI
- 10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7 · DOI · Paper page
- gu, 2017, [Online]
- 10.1007/978-3-319-26148-5_32 · DOI
- 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418964 · DOI
- barthel, 2017, Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines
- 10.1126/science.aao2998 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.356.6336.368 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICDM.2017.105 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0128193 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2806416.2806652 · DOI
- 10.1109/MC.2016.183 · DOI
- mitra, 2015, CREDBANK: A large-scale social media corpus with associated credibility annotations, Proc AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media, 258
- carton, 2015, Audience analysis for competing memes in social media, Proc AAAI Conf on Weblogs and Social Media, 41
- 10.1145/2685553.2702691 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
"Just Asking Questions": Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots
FitzGerald, K. M., Riedlinger, M., Bruns, A., Harrington, S., Graham, T., & Angus, D. (2026) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.11337 · Cited by 1
“…social media users that Donald Trump staged his own assassination attempt in July 2024 (Donald Trump assassination conspiracy theory); 9. and finally, the idea that Donald Trump or his close advisors including Elon Musk rigged the 2024 election in his favour (2024 US election conspiracy theory).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Shao, C., Hui, P.-M., Cui, P., Jiang, X., & Peng, Y.
- Affiliations
- National University of Defense Technology (CN)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Xiangtan University (CN)
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 75327-75341
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901377436
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 3.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- China Scholarship Council
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61272010)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Keywords
- fact-checking, misinformation, social bots, Twitter, misinformation amplification, survival analysis, cross correlation function, debunking, hashtag hijacking, recommendation algorithms
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