SynthesisPloS one2021
A systematic review on fake news research through the lens of news creation and consumption: Research efforts, challenges, and future directions.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early morning hour and evening usage habits increase misinformation-spread.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Fake news research trends, linkages to generative artificial intelligence and sustainable development goals.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Perception of misinformation on social media among Chinese college students.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The geography of corporate fake news.PloS one · 2024Article
- Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The monkeypox outbreak: What lessons can we learn from the COVID-19 infodemic?Ethics, medicine, and public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Fake news detection on social media: the predictive role of university students' critical thinking dispositions and new media literacy.Smart learning environments · 2023Article
- Review
- Fake news: Why do we believe it?Joint bone spine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough fake news creation and consumption are mutually related and can be changed to one another, our review indicates that a significant amount of research has primarily focused on news creation. To mitigate this research gap, we present a comprehensive survey of fake news research, conducted in the fields of computer and social sciences, through the lens of news creation and consumption with internal and external factors.
methodsWe collect 2,277 fake news-related literature searching six primary publishers (ACM, IEEE, arXiv, APA, ELSEVIER, and Wiley) from July to September 2020. These articles are screened according to specific inclusion criteria (see Fig 1). Eligible literature are categorized, and temporal trends of fake news research are examined.
resultsAs a way to acquire more comprehensive understandings of fake news and identify effective countermeasures, our review suggests (1) developing a computational model that considers the characteristics of news consumption environments leveraging insights from social science, (2) understanding the diversity of news consumers through mental models, and (3) increasing consumers' awareness of the characteristics and impacts of fake news through the support of transparent information access and education.
conclusionWe discuss the importance and direction of supporting one's "digital media literacy" in various news generation and consumption environments through the convergence of computational and social science research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.