Cited by 189Media and Digital CommunicationMedia Studies and CommunicationFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Why Communication Researchers Should Study the Internet: A Dialogue

Newhagen, John E., Rafaeli, Sheizaf·2006·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00172.x

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newhagen, J. E., & Rafaeli, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Published
2006-06-23
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
0-0
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015140830
Cited by
188
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
19.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
internet, communication research, computer-mediated communication, online communication, research agenda

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