ArticlePNAS nexus2023
High level of correspondence across different news domain quality rating sets.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blueprint of a smokescreen: Introducing the validated climate disinformation corpus for behavioural research on combating climate disinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Exposure to low-credibility online health content is limited and is concentrated among older adults.Nature aging · 2026Article
- Leave the world(view) behind, but keep the words: The effect of conspiracism on writing.PloS one · 2026Article
- Divergent patterns of engagement with partisan and low-quality news across seven social media platforms.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Explaining Twitter's inability to effectively moderate content during the COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Using co-sharing to identify use of mainstream news for promoting potentially misleading narratives.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- References to unbiased sources increase the helpfulness of community fact-checks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Designing social media content recommendation algorithms for societal good.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- Mechanisms of mistrust: A Bayesian account of misinformation learning.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Large-scale analysis of fact-checked stories on Twitter reveals graded effects of ambiguity and falsehood on information reappearance.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- A perspective on friction interventions to curb the spread of misinformation.Npj complexity · 2025Review
- Nudging recommendation algorithms increases news consumption and diversity on YouTube.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries.Nature communications · 2024Article
- An evaluation of online information acquisition in US news deserts.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Current engagement with unreliable sites from web search driven by navigational search.Science advances · 2024Article
- Article
- Incentivizing news consumption on social media platforms using large language models and realistic bot accounts.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- The consequences of misinformation concern on media consumption.Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review · 2024Article
- The systemic impact of deplatforming on social media.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One widely used approach for quantifying misinformation consumption and sharing is to evaluate the quality of the news domains that a user interacts with. However, different media organizations and fact-checkers have produced different sets of news domain quality ratings, raising questions about the reliability of these ratings. In this study, we compared six sets of expert ratings and found that they generally correlated highly with one another. We then created a comprehensive set of domain ratings for use by the research community (github.com/hauselin/domain-quality-ratings), leveraging an ensemble "wisdom of experts" approach. To do so, we performed imputation together with principal component analysis to generate a set of aggregate ratings. The resulting rating set comprises 11,520 domains-the most extensive coverage to date-and correlates well with other rating sets that have more limited coverage. Together, these results suggest that experts generally agree on the relative quality of news domains, and the aggregate ratings that we generate offer a powerful research tool for evaluating the quality of news consumed or shared and the efficacy of misinformation interventions.
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.