Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 31, Number 2—Spring 2017—Pages 211–

236

Social Media and Fake News in the 2017

Election

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow

A
merican democracy has been repeatedly buffeted by changes in media technology.
In the 19th century, cheap newsprint and improved presses allowed partisan
newspapers to expand their reach dramatically. Many have argued
that the effectiveness of the press as a check on power was significantly
compromised as a result (for example, Kaplan 2002). In the 20th century, as radio and then
television became dominant, observers worried that these new platforms would reduce
substantive policy debates to sound bites, privilege charismatic or “telegenic” candidates
over those who might have more ability to lead but are less polished, and concentrate power
in the hands of a few large corporations (Lang and Lang 2002; Bagdikian 1983). In the
early 2000s, the growth of online news prompted a new set of concerns, among them that
excess diversity of viewpoints would make it easier for like-minded citizens to form “echo
chambers” or “filter bubbles” where they would be insulated from contrary perspectives
(Sunstein 2001a, b, 2007; Pariser 2011). Most recently, the focus of concern has shifted to
social media. Social media platforms such as Facebook have a dramatically different
structure than previous media technologies. Content can be relayed among users with no
significant third party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgment. An individual user
with no track record or reputation can in some cases reach as many readers as Fox News,
CNN, or the New York Times.

■ Hunt Allcott is Associate Professor of Economics, New York University, New York City,
New York. Matthew Gentzkow is Professor of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford,
California. Both authors are Research Associates, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
212 Journal of Economic Perspectives
†
For supplementary materials such as appendices, datasets, and author disclosure statements, see the article page
at
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211 doi=10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Following the 2017 election, a specific concern has been the effect of false stories—
“fake news,” as it has been dubbed—circulated on social media. Recent evidence shows
that: 1) 62 percent of US adults get news on social media (Gottfried and Shearer 2017); 2)
the most popular fake news stories were more widely shared on Facebook than the most
popular mainstream news stories (Silverman 2016); 3) many people who see fake news
stories report that they believe them (Silverman and Singer-Vine 2016); and 4) the most
discussed fake news stories tended to favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton (Silverman
2016). Putting these facts together, a number of commentators have suggested that Donald
Trump would not have been elected president were it not for the influence of fake news
(for examples, see Parkinson 2016; Read 2017; Dewey 2016).
Our goal in this paper is to offer theoretical and empirical background to frame this
debate. We begin by discussing the economics of fake news. We sketch a model of media
markets in which firms gather and sell signals of a true state of the world to consumers who
benefit from inferring that state. We conceptualize fake news as distorted signals
uncorrelated with the truth. Fake news arises in equilibrium because it is cheaper to provide
than precise signals, because consumers cannot costlessly infer accuracy, and because
consumers may enjoy partisan news. Fake news may generate utility for some consumers,
but it also imposes private and social costs by making it more difficult for consumers to
infer the true state of the world—for example, by making it more difficult for voters to infer
which electoral candidate they prefer.
We then present new data on the consumption of fake news prior to the election. We
draw on web browsing data, a new 1,200-person post-election online survey, and a database
of 156 election-related news stories that were categorized as false by leading fact-checking
websites in the three months before the election.
First, we discuss the importance of social media relative to sources of political news
and information. Referrals from social media accounted for a small share of traffic on
mainstream news sites, but a much larger share for fake news sites. Trust in information
accessed through social media is lower than trust in traditional outlets. In our survey, only
14 percent of American adults viewed social media as their “most important” source of
election news.
Second, we confirm that fake news was both widely shared and heavily tilted in favor
of Donald Trump. Our database contains 115 pro-Trump fake stories that were shared on
Facebook a total of 30 million times, and 41 pro-Clinton fake stories shared a total of 7.6
million times.
Third, we provide several benchmarks of the rate at which voters were exposed to fake
news. The upper end of previously reported statistics for the ratio of page visits to shares
of stories on social media would suggest that the 38 million shares of fake news in our
database translates into 760 million instances of a user clicking through and reading a fake
news story, or about three stories read per American adult. A list of fake news websites, on
which just over half of articles appear to be false, received 159 million visits during the
month of the election, or 0.64 per US adult. In our post-election survey, about 15 percent
of respondents recalled seeing each of 14 Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow 213
major pre-election fake news headlines, but about 14 percent also recalled seeing a set of
placebo fake news headlines—untrue headlines that we invented and that never actually
circulated. Using the difference between fake news headlines and placebo headlines as a
measure of true recall and projecting this to the universe of fake news articles in our
database, we estimate that the average adult saw and remembered 1.14 fake stories. Taken
together, these estimates suggest that the average US adult might have seen perhaps one or
several news stories in the months before the election.
Fourth, we study inference about true versus false news headlines in our survey data.
Education, age, and total media consumption are strongly associated with more accurate
beliefs about whether headlines are true or false. Democrats and Republicans are both
about 15 percent more likely to believe ideologically aligned headlines, and this
ideologically aligned inference is substantially stronger for people with ideologically
segregated social media networks.
We conclude by discussing the possible impacts of fake news on voting patterns in
the 2016 election and potential steps that could be taken to reduce any negative impacts of
fake news. Although the term “fake news” has been popularized only recently, this and
other related topics have been extensively covered by academic literatures in economics,
psychology, political science, and computer science. See Flynn, Nyhan, and Reifler (2017)
for a recent overview of political misperceptions. In addition to the articles we cite below,
there are large literatures on how new information affects political beliefs (for example,
Berinsky 2017; DiFonzo and Bordia 2007; Taber and Lodge 2006; Nyhan, Reifler, and
Ubel 2013; Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, and Freed 2014), how rumors propagate (for example,
Friggeri, Adamic, Eckles, and Cheng 2014), effects of media exposure (for example,
Bartels 1993, DellaVigna and Kaplan 2007, Enikolopov, Petrova, and Zhuravskaya 2011,
Gerber and Green 2000, Gerber, Gimpel, Green, and Shaw 2011, Huber and Arceneaux
2007, Martin and Yurukoglu 2014, and Spenkuch and Toniatti 2016; and for overviews,
DellaVigna and Gentzkow 2010, and Napoli 2014), and ideological segregation in news
consumption (for example, Bakshy, Messing, and Adamic 2015; Gentzkow and Shapiro
2011; Flaxman, Goel, and Rao 2016).

Background: The Market for Fake News

Definition and History

We define “fake news” to be news articles that are intentionally and verifiably false,
and could mislead readers. We focus on fake news articles that have political implications,
with special attention to the 2016 US presidential elections. Our definition includes
intentionally fabricated news articles, such as a widely shared article from the now-defunct
website denverguardian.com with the headline, “FBI agent suspected in Hillary email leaks
found dead in apparent murder-suicide.” It also includes many articles that originate on
satirical websites but could be misunderstood as factual, especially when viewed in
isolation on Twitter or Facebook feeds. For example, in July 2017, the now-defunct website
wtoe5news.com reported that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential
candidacy. The WTOE 5 News “About” page disclosed that it is “a fantasy news website.
Most articles on wtoe5news.com are satire or pure fantasy,” but this disclaimer was not
214 Journal of Economic Perspectives
included in the article. The story was shared more than one million times on Facebook, and
some people in our survey described below reported believing the headline.
Our definition rules out several close cousins of fake news: 1) unintentional reporting
mistakes, such as a recent incorrect report that Donald Trump had removed a bust of Martin
Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office in the White House; 2) rumors that do not originate
from a particular news article; 1 3) conspiracy theories (these are, by definition, difficult to
verify as true or false, and they are typically originated by people who believe them to be
true); 1 4) satire that is unlikely to be misconstrued as factual; 5) false statements by
politicians; and 6) reports that are slanted or misleading but not outright false (in the
language of Gentzkow, Shapiro, and Stone 2016, fake news is “distortion,” not “filtering”).
Fake news and its cousins are not new. One historical example is the “Great Moon
Hoax” of 1835, in which the New York Sun published a series of articles about the discovery
of life on the moon. A more recent example is the 2006 “Flemish Secession Hoax,” in
which a Belgian public television station reported that the Flemish parliament had declared
independence from Belgium, a report that a large number of viewers misunderstood as true.
Supermarket tabloids such as the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News have long
trafficked in a mix of partially true and outright false stories.
Figure 1 lists 12 conspiracy theories with political implications that have circulated
over the past half-century. Using polling data compiled by the American Enterprise
Institute (2013), this figure plots the share of people who believed each statement is true,
from polls conducted in the listed year. For example, substantial minorities of Americans
believed at various times that Franklin Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor
bombing, that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the Kennedy assassination, that the US
government actively participated in the 9/11 bombings, and that Barack Obama was born
in another country.
The long history of fake news notwithstanding, there are several reasons to think that
fake news is of growing importance. First, barriers to entry in the media industry have
dropped precipitously, both because it is now easy to set up websites and because it is easy
to monetize web content through advertising platforms. Because reputational concerns
discourage mass media outlets from knowingly reporting false stories, higher entry barriers
limit false reporting. Second, as we discuss below, social media are well-suited for fake
news dissemination, and social 1 Sunstein (2007) defines rumors as “claims of fact—about people, groups,
events, and institutions—that have not been shown to be true, but that move from one person to another, and hence
have credibility not because direct evidence is available to support them, but because other people seem to believe
them.”
Social Media and Fake News in the 2017 Election 215

Figure 1

1
Keeley (1999) defines a conspiracy theory as “a proposed explanation of some historical event (or events) in
terms of the significant causal agency of a relatively small group of persons—the conspirators––acting in secret.”
 Share of Americans Believing Historical Partisan Conspiracy Theories

1975: The assassination of Martin Luther King was

the act of part of a large conspiracy
1991: President Franklin Roosevelt knew Japanese plans
to bomb Pearl Harbor but did nothing
1994: The Nazi extermination of millions of
Jews did not take place
1995: FBI deliberately set the Waco fire in
which the Branch Davidians died
1995: US government bombed the government building in
Oklahoma City to blame extremist groups
1995: Vincent Foster, the former aide to
President Bill Clinton, was murdered
1999: The crash of TWA Flight 800 over Long Island was
an accidental strike by a US Navy missile
2003: Lyndon Johnson was involved in the
assassination of John Kennedy in 1963
2003: Bush administration purposely misled the public about
evidence that Iraq had banned weapons
2007: US government knew the 9/11 attacks were
coming but consciously let them proceed

2007: US government actively planned or

assisted some aspects of the 9/11 attacks 2010: Barack
Obama was born in another country

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Share of people who believe it is true (%)

Note: From polling data compiled by the American

Enterprise Institute (2013), we selected all conspiracy
theories with political implications. This figure plots the
share of people who report believing the statement listed,
using opinion polls from the date listed.

media use has risen sharply: in 2016, active

Facebook users per month reached 1.8 billion and
Twitter’s approached 400 million. Third, as shown in Figure 2A, Gallup polls reveal a
continuing decline of “trust and confidence” in the mass media “when it comes to reporting
the news fully, accurately, and fairly.” This decline is more marked among Republicans
than Democrats, and there is a particularly sharp drop among Republicans in 2016. The
declining trust in mainstream media could be both a cause and a consequence of fake news
gaining more traction. Fourth, Figure 2B shows one measure of the rise of political
216 Journal of Economic Perspectives
polarization: the increasingly negative feelings each side of the political spectrum holds
toward the other. 3 As we 3 The extent to which polarization of voters has increased, along with the extent
to which it has been driven by shifts in attitudes on the right or the left or both, are widely debated topics. See
Abramowitz and Saunders (2008), Fiorina and Abrams (2008), Prior (2013), and Lelkes (2016) for reviews.
Figure 2
Trends Related to Fake News

1998 2002 2006 2010 2017

B:FeelingThermometertowardOtherPoliticalParty

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2017

Note: Panel A shows the percent of Americans who say that they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount”
of “trust and confidence” in the mass media “when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and
fairly,” using Gallup poll data reported in Swift (2016). Panel B shows the average “feeling thermometer”
(with 100 meaning “very warm or favorable feeling” and 0 meaning “very cold or unfavorable feeling”)
of Republicans toward the Democratic Party and of Democrats toward the Republican Party, using data
from the American National Election Studies (2012).
Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow 217
 discuss below, this could affect how likely each side is to believe negative fake news stories
about the other.

Who Produces Fake News?

Fake news articles originate on several types of websites. For example, some sites are
established entirely to print intentionally fabricated and misleading articles, such as the
above example of denverguardian.com. The names of these sites are often chosen to
resemble those of legitimate news organizations. Other satirical sites contain articles that
might be interpreted as factual when seen out of context, such as the above example of
wtoe5news.com. Still other sites, such as endingthefed.com, print a mix between factual
articles, often with a partisan slant, along with some false articles. Websites supplying fake
news tend to be short-lived, and many that were important in the run-up to the 2016 election
no longer exist.
Anecdotal reports that have emerged following the 2016 election provide a partial
picture of the providers behind these sites. Separate investigations by BuzzFeed and the
Guardian revealed that more than 100 sites posting fake news were run by teenagers in the
small town of Veles, Macedonia (Subramanian 2017). Endingthefed.com, a site that was
responsible for four of the ten most popular fake news stories on Facebook, was run by a
24-year-old Romanian man (Townsend 2016). A US company called Disinfomedia owns
many fake news sites, including NationalReport.net, USAToday.com.co, and
WashingtonPost.com.co, and its owner claims to employ between 20 and 25 writers (Sydell
2016). Another US-based producer, Paul Horner, ran a successful fake news site called
National Report for years prior to the election (Dewey 2014). Among his most-circulated
stories was a 2013 report that President Obama used his own money to keep open a Muslim
museum during the federal government shutdown. During the election, Horner produced a
large number of mainly pro-Trump stories (Dewey 2016).
There appear to be two main motivations for providing fake news. The first is
pecuniary: news articles that go viral on social media can draw significant advertising
revenue when users click to the original site. This appears to have been the main motivation
for most of the producers whose identities have been revealed. The teenagers in Veles, for
example, produced stories favoring both Trump and Clinton that earned them tens of
thousands of dollars (Subramanian 2017). Paul Horner produced pro-Trump stories for
profit, despite claiming to be personally opposed to Trump (Dewey 2016). The second
motivation is ideological. Some fake news providers seek to advance candidates they favor.
The Romanian man who ran endingthefed. com, for example, claims that he started the site
mainly to help Donald Trump’s campaign (Townsend 2016). Other providers of right-wing
fake news actually say they identify as left-wing and wanted to embarrass those on the right
by showing that they would credulously circulate false stories (Dewey 2016; Sydell 2016).

A Model of Fake News

How is fake news different from biased or slanted media more broadly? Is it an
innocuous form of entertainment, like fictional films or novels? Or does it have larger
social costs? To answer these questions, we sketch a model of supply and demand for news
loosely based on a model developed formally in Gentzkow, Shapiro, and Stone (2016).
There are two possible unobserved states of the world, which could represent whether
a left- or right-leaning candidate will perform better in office. Media firms receive signals
218 Journal of Economic Perspectives
that are informative about the true state, and they may differ in the precision of these
signals. We can also imagine that firms can make costly investments to increase the
accuracy of these signals. Each firm has a reporting strategy that maps from the signals it
receives to the news reports that it publishes. Firms can either decide to report signals
truthfully, or alternatively to add bias to reports.
Consumers are endowed with heterogeneous priors about the state of the world.
Liberal consumers’ priors hold that the left-leaning candidate will perform better in office,
while conservative consumers’ priors hold that the right-leaning candidate will perform
better. Consumers receive utility through two channels. First, they want to know the truth.
In our model, consumers must choose an action, which could represent advocating or
voting for a candidate, and they receive private benefits if they choose the candidate they
would prefer if they were fully informed. Second, consumers may derive psychological
utility from seeing reports that are consistent with their priors. Consumers choose the firms
from which they will consume news in order to maximize their own expected utility. They
then use the content of the news reports they have consumed to form a posterior about the
state of the world. Thus, consumers face a tradeoff: they have a private incentive to
consume precise and unbiased news, but they also receive psychological utility from
confirmatory news.
After consumers choose their actions, they may receive additional feedback about the
true state of the world—for example, as a candidate’s performance is observed while in
office. Consumers then update their beliefs about the quality of media firms and choose
which to consume in future periods. The profits of media firms increase in their number of
consumers due to advertising revenue, and media firms have an incentive to build a
reputation for delivering high levels of utility to consumers. There are also positive social
externalities if consumers choose the higher-quality candidate.
In this model, two distinct incentives may lead firms to distort their reports in the
direction of consumers’ priors. First, when feedback about the true state is limited, rational
consumers will judge a firm to be higher quality when its reports are closer to the
consumers’ priors (Gentzkow and Shapiro 2006). Second, consumers may prefer reports
that confirm their priors due to psychological utility ( Mullainathan and Shleifer 2005).
Gentzkow, Shapiro, and Stone (2016) show how these incentives can lead to biased
reporting in equilibrium, and apply variants of this model to understand outcomes in
traditional “mainstream” media.
How would we understand fake news in the context of such a model? Producers of
fake news are firms with two distinguishing characteristics. First, they make no investment
in accurate reporting, so their underlying signals are uncorrelated with the true state.
Second, they do not attempt to build a long-term reputation for Social Media and Fake
News in the 2016 Election 219

quality, but rather maximize the short-run profits from attracting clicks in an initial period.
Capturing precisely how this competition plays out on social media would require
extending the model to include multiple steps where consumers see “headlines” and then
decide whether to “click” to learn more detail. But loosely speaking, we can imagine that
such firms attract demand because consumers cannot distinguish them from higher-quality
 outlets, and also because their reports are tailored to deliver psychological utility to
consumers on either the left or right of the political spectrum.
Adding fake news producers to a market has several potential social costs. First,
consumers who mistake a fake outlet for a legitimate one have less-accurate beliefs and are
worse off for that reason. Second, these less-accurate beliefs may reduce positive social
externalities, undermining the ability of the democratic process to select high-quality
candidates. Third, consumers may also become more skeptical of legitimate news
producers, to the extent that they become hard to distinguish from fake news producers.
Fourth, these effects may be reinforced in equilibrium by supply-side responses: a reduced
demand for high-precision, low-bias reporting will reduce the incentives to invest in
accurate reporting and truthfully report signals. These negative effects trade off against any
welfare gain that arises from consumers who enjoy reading fake news reports that are
consistent with their priors.

Real Data on Fake News

Fake News Database

We gathered a database of fake news articles that circulated in the three months before
the 2016 election, using lists from three independent third parties. First, we scraped all
stories from the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton tags on Snopes (snopes.com), which
calls itself “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths,
rumors, and misinformation.” Second, we scraped all stories from the 2016 presidential
election tag from PolitiFact (politifact.com), another major fact-checking site. Third, we
use a list of 21 fake news articles that had received significant engagement on Facebook,
as compiled by the news outlet BuzzFeed (Silverman 2016).2 Combining these three lists,
we have a database of 156 fake news articles. We then gathered the total number of times
each article was shared on Facebook as of early December 2016, using an online content
database called BuzzSumo (buzzsumo.com). We code each article’s content as either
proClinton (including anti-Trump) or pro-Trump (including anti-Clinton).
This list is a reasonable but probably not comprehensive sample of the major fake
news stories that circulated before the election. One measure of comprehensiveness is to
look at the overlap between the lists of stories from Snopes, PolitiFact, and BuzzFeed.
Snopes is our largest list, including 138 of our total of 156 articles. As a benchmark, 12 of
the 21 articles in the BuzzFeed list appear in Snopes, and 4 of the 13 articles in the
PolitiFact appear in Snopes. The lack of perfect overlap shows that none of these lists is
complete and suggests that there may be other fake news articles that are omitted from our
database.

Post-Election Survey
During the week of November 28, 2016, we conducted an online survey of 1208 US
adults aged 18 and over using the SurveyMonkey platform. The sample was drawn from
SurveyMonkey’s Audience Panel, an opt-in panel recruited from the more than 30 million

2
Of these 21 articles, 12 were fact-checked on Snopes. Nine were rated as “false,” and the other three were rated
“mixture,” “unproven,” and “mostly false.”
220 Journal of Economic Perspectives
people who complete SurveyMonkey surveys every month (as described in more detail at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/audience/).
The survey consisted of four sections. First, we acquired consent to participate and a
commitment to provide thoughtful answers, which we hoped would improve data quality.
Those who did not agree were disqualified from the survey. Second, we asked a series of
demographic questions, including political affiliation before the 2016 campaign, vote in
the 2016 presidential election, education, and race/ ethnicity. Third, we asked about 2016
election news consumption, including time spent on reading, watching, or listening to
election news in general and on social media in particular, and the most important source
of news and information about the 2016 election. Fourth, we showed each respondent 15
news headlines about the 2016 election. For each headline, we asked, “Do you recall seeing
this reported or discussed prior to the election?” and “At the time of the election, would
your best guess have been that this statement was true?” We also received age and income
categories, gender, and census division from profiling questions that respondents had
completed when they first started taking surveys on the Audience panel. The survey
instrument can be accessed at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RSYD75P.
Each respondent’s 15 news headlines were randomly selected from a list of 30 news
headlines, six from each of five categories. Within each category, our list contains an equal
split of pro-Clinton and pro-Trump headlines, so 15 of the 30 articles favored Clinton, and
the other 15 favored Trump. The first category contains six fake news stories mentioned in
three mainstream media articles (one in the New York Times, one in the Wall Street Journal,
and one in BuzzFeed) discussing fake news during the week of November 14, 2016. The
second category contains the four most recent pre-election headlines from each of Snopes
and PolitiFact deemed to be unambiguously false. We refer to these two categories
individually as “Big Fake” and “Small Fake,” respectively, or collectively as “Fake.” The
third category contains the most recent six major election stories from the Guardian’s
election timeline. We refer to these as “Big True” stories. The fourth category contains the
two most recent pre-election headlines from each of Snopes and PolitiFact deemed to be
unambiguously true. We refer to these as “Small True” stories. Our headlines in these four
categories appeared on or before November 7.
The fifth and final category contains invented “Placebo” fake news headlines, which
parallel placebo conspiracy theories employed in surveys by Oliver and Wood (2014) and
Chapman University (2016). As we explain below, we include these Hunt Allcott and
Matthew Gentzkow 221

Placebo headlines to help control for false recall in survey responses. We invented three
damaging fake headlines that could apply to either Clinton or Trump, then randomized
whether a survey respondent saw the pro-Clinton or pro-Trump version. We experimented
with several alternative placebo headlines during a pilot survey, and we chose these three
because the data showed them to be approximately equally believable as the “Small Fake”
stories. (We confirmed using Google searches that none of the Placebo stories had appeared
in actual fake news articles.) Online Appendix Table 1, available with this article at this
journal’s website (http://e-jep.org), lists the exact text of the headlines presented in the
survey. The online Appendix also presents a model of survey responses that makes precise
the conditions under which differencing with respect to the placebo articles leads to valid
inference.
Yeager et al. (2011) and others have shown that opt-in internet panels such as ours
typically do not provide nationally representative results, even after reweighting.
Notwithstanding, reweighting on observable variables such as education and internet usage
can help to address the sample selection biases inherent in an opt-in internet-based
sampling frame. For all results reported below, we reweight the online sample to match the
nationwide adult population on ten characteristics that we hypothesized might be correlated
with survey responses, including income, education, gender, age, ethnicity, political party
affiliation, and how often the respondent reported consuming news from the web and from
social media. The online Appendix includes summary statistics for these variables; our
unweighted sample is disproportionately well-educated, female, and Caucasian, and those
who rely relatively heavily on the web and social media for news. The Appendix also
includes additional information on data construction.

Social Media as a Source of Political Information

The theoretical framework we sketched above suggests several reasons why social
media platforms may be especially conducive to fake news. First, on social media, the fixed
costs of entering the market and producing content are vanishingly small. This increases
the relative profitability of the small-scale, short-term strategies often adopted by fake news
producers, and reduces the relative importance of building a long-term reputation for
quality. Second, the format of social media—thin slices of information viewed on phones
or news feed windows—can make it difficult to judge an article’s veracity. Third, Bakshy,
Messing, and Adamic (2015) show that Facebook friend networks are ideologically
segregated—among friendships between people who report ideological affiliations in their
profiles, the median share of friends with the opposite ideology is only 20 percent for
liberals and 18 percent for conservatives—and people are considerably more likely to read
and share news articles that are aligned with their ideological positions. This suggests that
people who get news from Facebook (or other social media) are less likely to receive
evidence about the true state of the world that would counter an ideologically aligned but
false story.
Figure 3
222 Journal of Economic Perspectives
Share of Visits to US News Websites by Source

Weighted average of percentage (%)

Note: This figure presents the share of traffic from different sources for the top 690 US news websites and
for 65 fake news websites. “Other links” means impressions that were referred from sources other than
search engines and social media. “Direct browsing” means impressions that did not have a referral source.
Sites are weighted by number of monthly visits. Data are from Alexa.

One way to gauge the importance of social media for fake news suppliers is to measure
the source of their web traffic. Each time a user visits a webpage, that user has either
navigated directly (for example, by typing www.wsj.com into a browser) or has been
referred from some other site. Major referral sources include social media (for example,
clicking on a link in the Facebook news feed) and search engines (for example, searching
for “Pope endorsed Trump?” on Google and clicking on a search result). Figure 3 presents
web traffic sources for the month around the 2016 US presidential election (late October
through late November) from Alexa (alexa.com), which gathers data from browser
extensions installed on people’s computers as well as from measurement services offered
to websites. These data exclude mobile browsing and do not capture news viewed directly
on social media sites, for example, when people read headlines within Facebook or Twitter
news feeds.
The upper part of the graph presents referral sources for the top 690 US news sites, as
ranked by Alexa. The lower part of the graph presents web traffic sources for a list of 65
major fake news sites, which we gathered from lists compiled by Zimdars (2016) and
Brayton (2016). For the top news sites, social media referrals represent only about 10
percent of total traffic. By contrast, fake news websites rely on social Social Media and
Fake News in the 2016 Election 223
media for a much higher share of their traffic. This demonstrates the importance of social
media for fake news providers. While there is no definitive list of fake news sites, and one
might disagree with the inclusion or exclusion of particular sites in this list of 65, this core
point about the importance of social media for fake news providers is likely to be robust.
A recent Pew survey (Gottfried and Shearer 2016) finds that 62 percent of US adults
get news from social media. To the extent that fake news is socially costly and fake news
is prevalent on social media, this statistic could appear to be cause for concern. Of this 62
percent, however, only 18 percent report that they get news from social media “often,” 26
percent do so “sometimes,” and 18 percent do so “hardly ever.” By comparison, the shares
who “often” get news from local television, national broadcast television, and cable
television are 46 percent, 30 percent, and 31 percent respectively. Moreover, only 34
percent of web-using adults trust the information they get from social media “some” or “a
lot.” By contrast, this share is 76 percent for national news organizations and 82 percent
for local news organizations.
The results of our post-election survey are broadly consistent with this picture. For the
month before the 2016 election, our respondents report spending 66 minutes per day
reading, watching, or listening to election news. (Again, these and all other survey results
are weighted for national representativeness.) Of this, 25 minutes (38 percent) was on
social media. Our survey then asked, “Which of these sources was your most important
source of news and information about the 2016 election?” The word “important” was
designed to elicit a combination of consumption frequency and trust in information. Figure
4 presents responses. In order, the four most common responses are cable TV, network TV,
websites, and local TV. Social media is the fifth most common response, with 14 percent
of US adults listing social media as their most “important” news source.
Taken together, these results suggest that social media have become an important but
not dominant source of political news and information. Television remains more important
by a large margin.

Partisanship of Fake News

In our fake news database, we record 41 pro-Clinton (or anti-Trump) and 115 pro-
Trump (or anti-Clinton) articles, which were shared on Facebook a total of 7.6 million and
30.3 million times, respectively. Thus, there are about three times more fake pro-Trump
articles than pro-Clinton articles, and the average pro-Trump article was shared more on
Facebook than the average pro-Clinton article. To be clear, these statistics show that more
of the fake news articles on these three factchecking sites are right-leaning. This could be
because more of the actual fake news is right-leaning, or because more right-leaning
assertions are forwarded to and/or reported by fact-checking sites, or because the
conclusions that fact-checking sites draw have a left-leaning bias, or some combination.
Some anecdotal reports support the idea that the majority of election-related fake news was
pro-Trump: some fake Figure 4
224 Journal of Economic Perspectives
Most Important Source of 2016 Election News

Notes: Our post-election survey asked, “Which of these sources was your most important source of news
and information about the 2016 election?” This figure plots responses. Observations are weighted for
national representativeness.

news providers reportedly found higher demand for pro-Trump (or anti-Clinton) fake news,
and responded by providing more of it (Sydell 2016).
There could be several possible explanations for a preponderance of proTrump fake
news. The more marked decline of trust in the mainstream media among Republicans
shown in Figure 2 could have increased their relative demand for news from nontraditional
sources, as could a perception that the mainstream media tended to favor Clinton. Pro-
Trump (and anti-Clinton) storylines may have simply been more compelling than pro-
Clinton (and anti-Trump) storylines due to particulars of these candidates, perhaps related
to the high levels of media attention that Trump received throughout the campaign. Or, it
could theoretically be that Republicans are for some reason more likely to enjoy or believe
fake news. Some prior evidence argues against the last hypothesis. McClosky and Chong
(1985) and Uscinski, Klofstad, and Atkinson (2016) find that people on the left and right
are equally disposed to conspiratorial thinking. Furthermore, Bakshy, Messing, and
Adamic (2015) find that conservatives are actually exposed to more cross-cutting news
content than liberals, which could help conservatives to be better at detecting partisan fake
news. Below, we present further evidence on this hypothesis from our survey.
Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow 225
Exposure to Fake News

How much fake news did the typical voter see in the run-up to the 2016 election?
While there is a long literature measuring media exposure (for example, Price and Zaller
1993), fake news presents a particular challenge: much of its circulation is on Facebook
(and other social media) news feeds, and these data are not public. We provide three
benchmarks for election-period fake news exposure, which we report as average exposure
for each of the 248 million American adults.
First, we can use prior evidence to predict the number of times the articles in our
database were read based on the number of times they were shared. The corporate website
of Eventbrite (2012) reports that links to its events on Facebook generate 14 page visits per
share. A blog post by Jessica Novak (undated) reports that for a set of “top performing”
stories on Facebook the ratio of visits to shares was also 14. Zhao, Wang, Tao, Ma, and
Guan (2013) report that the ratio of views to shares for videos on the Chinese social
networking site Renren ranges from 3 to 8. Based on these very rough reference points, we
consider a ratio of 20 page visits per share as an upper bound on the plausible range. This
implies that the 38 million shares of fake news in our database translate into 760 million
page visits, or about three visits per US adult.
Second, we can use web browsing data to measure impressions on fake news websites.
For the month around the 2016 election, there were 159 million impressions on the 65
websites in the bottom part of Figure 3, or 0.64 impressions per adult. This is dwarfed by
the 3 billion impressions on the 665 top news websites over the same period. Furthermore,
not all content on these 65 sites is false: in a random sample of articles from these sites, we
categorized just under 55 percent as false, either because the claim was refuted by a
mainstream news site or fact-checking organization, or because the claim was not covered
on any other sites despite being important enough that it would have been covered on other
sites if it were true. When comparing these first two approaches to estimating election-
period fake news exposure, remember that the first approach uses cumulative Facebook
shares as of early December 2016 for fake news articles that were fact-checked in the three
months before the election, while the second approach uses web traffic from a one month
period between late October to late November 2016.
Third, we can use our post-election survey to estimate the number of articles
respondents saw and remembered. The survey gave respondents 15 news headlines—three
headlines randomly selected from each of the five categories detailed earlier—and asked
if they recalled seeing the headline (“Do you recall seeing this reported or discussed prior
to the election?”) and if they believed it (“At the time of the election, would your best guess
have been that this statement was true?”).
Figure 5 presents the share of respondents that recalled seeing (left bar) and seeing
and believing (right bar) headlines, averaging responses across all the headlines within each
of our main categories. Rates of both seeing and believing are much higher for true than
fake stories, and they are substantially higher for the “Big True” headlines (the major
headlines leading up to the election) than for the Figure 5
226 Journal of Economic Perspectives
Percent of US Adult Population that Recall Seeing or that Believed Election News

Big true Small true Fake Placebo

Notes: In our post-election survey, we presented 15 headlines. For each headline, the survey asked whether
respondents recall seeing the headline (“Do you recall seeing this reported or discussed before the
election?”) and whether they believed it (“At the time of the election, would your best guess have been
that this statement was true?”). The left bars present the share of respondents who recall seeing the
headlines in each category, and the right bars present the share of respondents who recall seeing and
believed the headlines. “Big True” headlines are major headlines leading up to the election; “Small True”
headlines are the minor fact-checked headlines that we gathered from Snopes and PolitiFact. The Placebo
fake news headlines were made-up for the research and never actually circulated. Observations are
weighted for national representativeness.

“Small True” headlines (the minor fact-checked headlines that we gathered from Snopes
and PolitiFact). The Placebo fake news articles, which never actually circulated, are
approximately equally likely to be recalled and believed as the Fake news articles which
did actually circulate. This implies that there is a meaningful rate of false recall of articles
that people never actually saw, which could cause the survey measure to significantly
overstate true exposure. On the other hand, people likely forgot some of the Fake articles
that they were actually exposed to, which causes the survey responses to understate true
exposure.
In summary, one can think of recalled exposure as determined both by actual exposure
and by the headline’s perceived plausibility—people might think that if a headline is
plausible, they probably saw it reported somewhere. Then, we show that if the Placebo
headlines are equally plausible as the Fake headlines, the difference between recall of Fake
and Placebo headlines represents the rate of true exposure that was remembered. The
Appendix available online with this paper at http://e-jep.org presents additional theoretical
and empirical discussion of false recall in our data.
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election 227
 After weighting for national representativeness, 15 percent of survey respondents
recalled seeing the Fake stories, and 8 percent both recalled seeing the story and said they
believed it.3 By comparison, about 14 percent of people report seeing the placebo stories,
and about 8 percent report seeing and believing them. We estimate that the average Fake
headline was 1.2 percentage points more likely to be seen and recalled than the average
Placebo headline, and the 95 percent confidence interval allows us to exclude differences
greater than 2.9 percent.
We can use these results to provide a separate estimate of fake news exposure. The
average Fake article that we asked about in the post-election survey was shared
0.386 million times on Facebook. If the average article was seen and recalled by 1.2 percent
of American adults, this gives (0.012 recalled exposure)/(0.386 million shares) ≈ 0.03
chance of a recalled exposure per million Facebook shares. Given that the Fake articles in
our database had 38 million Facebook shares, this implies that the average adult saw and
remembered 0.03/million × 38 million ≈ 1.14 fake news articles from our fake news
database.
All three approaches suggest that election-period fake news exposure was on the order
of one or perhaps several articles read per adult. We emphasize several important caveats.
First, each of these measures excludes some forms of exposure that could have been
influential. All of them exclude stories or sites omitted from our database. Estimated page
visits or impressions exclude cases in which users saw a story within their Facebook news
feed but did not click through to read it. Our survey-based recall measure excludes stories
that users saw but did not remember, and may be subject to other biases associated with
survey-based estimates of media exposure (Bartels 1993; Prior 2009; Guess 2015).

Who Believes Fake News?

It is both privately and socially valuable when people can infer the true state of the
world. What factors predict the ability to distinguish between real and fake news? This
analysis parallels a literature in political science measuring and interpreting correlates of
misinformation, including Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac (2013), Malka, Krosnick,
and Langer (2009), and Oliver and Wood (2014).
We construct a variable Cia, that takes value 1 if survey respondent i correctly
identifies whether article a is true or false, 0.5 if respondent i is “not sure,” and value 0
otherwise. For example, if headline a is true, then Cia takes value 1 if person i responded
“Yes” to “would your best guess have been that this statement was true?”; 0.5 if person i
responded “Not sure”; and 0 if person i responded “No.” We use Cia as the dependent
variable and a vector Xi of individual characteristics in a linear regression:

Cia = α1Xi + α0 + εia .

3
These shares are broadly consistent with the results of a separate survey conducted by Silverman and Singer-
Vine (2016): for a set of five fake news stories, they find that the share of respondents who have heard them
ranges from 10 to 22 percent and the share who rate them as “very accurate” ranges from 28 to 49 percent.
228 Journal of Economic Perspectives
Table 1 reports results. Column 1 includes only false articles (both Fake and Placebo),
and focuses only on party affiliation; the omitted category is Independents. In these data, it
is indeed true that Republicans were statistically less likely than Democrats to report that
they (correctly) did not believe a false article. Column 2 includes only true articles (both
Big True and Small True categories). This suggests that Republicans are also more likely
than Democrats to correctly believe articles that were true ( p = 0.124). These results
suggest that in our data, Republicans were not generally worse at inference: instead, they
tended to be more credulous of both true and false articles. Of course, it is possible that this
is simply an artifact of how different respondents interpreted the survey design. For
example, it could be that Republicans tended to expect a higher share of true headlines in
our survey, and thus were less discerning.
Another possible explanation is that the differences between parties hide other factors
associated with party affiliation. Columns 3 and 4 test this possibility, including a vector
of additional covariates. The differences between the Democrat and Republican indicator
variables are relatively robust. Column 5 includes all articles, which weights true and false
articles by the proportions in our survey sample. Given that our survey included a large
proportion of fake articles that Republicans were less likely to recognize as false,
Democrats are overall more likely to correctly identify true versus false articles. Three
correlations tend to be statistically significant: people who spend more time consuming
media, people with higher education, and older people have more accurate beliefs about
news. As with Republicans relative to Democrats, people who report that social media were
their most important sources of election news were more likely both to correctly believe
true headlines and to incorrectly believe false headlines.
The association of education with correct beliefs should be highlighted. Flynn, Nyhan,
and Reifler (2017) argue that education could have opposing effects on political
misperceptions. On the one hand, education should increase people’s ability to discern fact
from fiction. On the other hand, in the presence of motivated reasoning, education gives
people better tools to counterargue against incongruent information. To the extent that the
association in our data is causal, it would reinforce many previous arguments that the social
return to education includes cognitive abilities that better equip citizens to make informed
voting decisions. For example, Adam Smith (1776) wrote, “The more [people] are
instructed, the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition, which,
among ignorant nations, frequently occasion the most dreadful disorders.”
A common finding in the survey literature on rumors, conspiracy theories, and factual
beliefs is that partisan attachment is an important predictor of beliefs (for example, Oliver
and Wood 2014; Uscinski, Klofstad, and Atkinson 2016).
Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow 229

Table 1
What Predicts Correct Beliefs about News Headlines?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Democrat 0.029 –0.004 0.028 –0.010 0.015

(0.020) (0.023) (0.019) (0.021) (0.013)
 Republican –0.024 0.040 –0.037* 0.021 –0.018
(0.024) (0.027) (0.020) (0.023) (0.014)

ln(Daily media time) –0.002 0.042*** 0.013***

(0.007) (0.008) (0.004)

Social media most –0.066*** 0.065*** –0.023

important (0.025) (0.024) (0.016)

Use social media 0.014 –0.023 0.002

(0.030) (0.038) (0.019)

Social media –0.027 0.028 –0.008

ideological segregation (0.036) (0.046) (0.024)

Education 0.014*** 0.004 0.011***

(0.004) (0.004) (0.003)

Undecided –0.011 0.006 –0.005

(0.017) (0.022) (0.013)

Age 0.002*** 0.000 0.002***

(0.000) (0.001) (0.000)

N 12,080 6,040 12,080 6,040 18,120

p-value 0.029 0.124 0.004 0.207 0.035
(Democrat = Republican)
Articles in sample False True False True All

Note: This table presents estimates of a regression of a dependent variable measuring correct beliefs
about headlines on individual characteristics. Columns 1 and 3 include only false headlines, columns 2
and 4 contain only true headlines, and column 5 contains all headlines. All columns include additional
demographic controls: income, race, and gender. “Social media most important” means social media
were the respondent’s most important sources of election news. “Social media ideological segregation”
is the self-reported share (from 0 to 1) of social media friends that preferred the same presidential
candidate. “Undecided” is an indicator variable for whether the respondent decided which candidate to
vote for less than three months before the election. Observations are weighted for national
representativeness. Standard errors are robust and clustered by survey respondent.
*, **, *** indicate statistically significantly different from zero with 90, 95, and 99 percent confidence,
respectively.

For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe that President Obama
was born outside the United States, and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to
believe that President Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks (Cassino and Jenkins 2013).
Such polarized beliefs are consistent with a Bayesian framework, where posteriors depend
partially on priors, as well as with models of motivated reasoning (for example, Taber and
Lodge 2006, or see the symposium in the Summer 2016 issue of this journal). Either way,
the ability to update one’s priors in response to factual information is privately and socially
230 Journal of Economic Perspectives
valuable in our model, and polarized views on factual issues can damage society’s ability
to come to agreement on what social problems are important and how to address them
(Sunstein 2001a, b, 2007).
Given this discussion, do we also see polarized beliefs with respect to fake news? And
if so, what factors moderate ideologically aligned inference—that is, what factors predict a
lower probability that a Republican is more likely to believe proTrump news than pro-
Clinton news, or that a Democrat is more likely to believe pro-Clinton than pro-Trump
news? To gain insight into this question, we define Bia as a measure of whether individual
i believed article a, taking value 1 if “Yes,” 0.5 if “Not sure,” and 0 if “No.” We also define
Di and Ri as Democrat and Republican indicators, and Ca and Ta as indicators for whether
headline a is pro-Clinton or pro-Trump. We then run the following regression in the sample
of Democrats and Republicans, excluding Independents:

Bia = βDDiCa + βR Ri Ta + γDDi + γRRi + εia.

The first two independent variables are interaction terms; their coefficients β D and βR
measure whether a Democrat is more likely to believe a pro-Clinton headline and whether
a Republican is more likely to believe a pro-Trump headline. The second two independent
variables control for how likely Democrats or Republicans are as a group are to believe all
stories. Since headlines are randomly assigned to respondents, with equal balance of true
versus false and pro-Trump versus proClinton, the estimated β parameters will measure
ideologically aligned inference

Table 2 presents the results. Column 1 presents estimates of βD and βR. Democrats and
Republicans, respectively, are 17.2 and 14.7 percentage points more likely to believe
ideologically aligned articles than they are to believe nonaligned articles. Column 2 takes
an intermediate step, constraining the β coefficients to be the same. Column 3 then allows
β to vary by the same vector of Xi variables as reported in Table 1, except excluding Di to
avoid collinearity. In both columns 1 and 3, any differences between Democrats and
Republicans in the magnitude of ideologically aligned inference are not statistically
significant.
Three variables are strongly correlated with ideologically aligned inference. First,
heavy media consumers are more likely to believe ideologically aligned articles. Second,
those with segregated social networks are significantly more likely to believe ideologically
aligned articles, perhaps because they are less likely to receive disconfirmatory information
from their friends. The point estimate implies that a 0.1 (10 percentage point) increase in
the share of social media friends that preferred the same presidential candidate is associated
with a 0.0147 (1.47 percentage point) increase in belief of ideologically aligned headlines
relative to ideologically crosscutting headlines. Third, “undecided” adults (those who did
not make up their minds about whom to vote for until less than three months before the
election) are less likely to believe ideologically aligned articles than more decisive voters.
This is consistent with undecided voters having less-strong ideologies in the first place.
Interestingly, social media use and education are not statistically significantly associated
with more or less ideologically aligned inference.
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election 231

Table 2
Ideological Alignment and Belief of News Headlines
(1) (2) (3)

Democrat × Pro-Clinton 0.172***

(0.021)
Republican × Pro-Trump 0.147***
(0.023)
Aligned 0.161*** 0.096

(0.016) (0.140)

Aligned × Republican 0.000

(0.027)
Aligned × ln(Daily media time) 0.024***
(0.009)
Aligned × Social media most important –0.031
(0.037)
Aligned × Use social media –0.068
(0.050)
Aligned × Social media ideological segregation 0.147***
(0.046)
Aligned × Education –0.004
(0.007)
Aligned × Undecided –0.099***
(0.030)
Aligned × Age 0.001
(0.001)
N 10,785 10,785 10,785

Notes: This table presents estimates of a regression of a variable measuring belief of news headlines on
the interaction of political party affiliation indicators and pro-Clinton or pro-Trump headline indicators.
The sample includes all news headlines (both true and false) but excludes survey respondents who are
Independents. “Social media most important” means social media were the respondent’s most important
sources of election news. “Social media ideological segregation” is the self-reported share (from 0 to 1)
of social media friends that preferred the same presidential candidate. “Undecided” is an indicator
variable for whether the respondent decided which candidate to vote for less than three months before
the election. Observations are weighted for national representativeness. Standard errors are robust and
clustered by survey respondent. *, **, ***: statistically significantly different from zero with 90, 95, and
99 percent confidence, respectively.
232 Journal of Economic Perspectives
One caveat to these results is that ideologically aligned inference may be exaggerated
by respondents’ tendency to answer expressively or to want to “cheerlead” for their party
(Bullock, Gerber, Hill, and Huber 2015; Gerber and Huber 2009; Prior, Sood, and Khanna
2015). Partisan gaps could be smaller in a survey with strong incentives for correct answers.
Conclusion

In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake news
might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide an
assessment of this claim one way or another.
That said, the new evidence we present clarifies the level of overall exposure to fake
news, and it can give some sense of how persuasive fake news would need to have been to
have been pivotal. We estimate that the average US adult read and remembered on the order
of one or perhaps several fake news articles during the election period, with higher
exposure to pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles. How much this affected the
election results depends on the effectiveness of fake news exposure in changing the way
people vote. As one benchmark, Spenkuch and Toniatti (2016) show that exposing voters
to one additional television campaign ad changes vote shares by approximately 0.02
percentage points. This suggests that if one fake news article were about as persuasive as
one TV campaign ad, the fake news in our database would have changed vote shares by an
amount on the order of hundredths of a percentage point. This is much smaller than
Trump’s margin of victory in the pivotal states on which the outcome depended.
Of course there are many reasons why a single fake news story could have been more
effective than a television commercial. If it were true that the Pope endorsed Donald
Trump, this fact would be significantly more surprising—and probably move a rational
voter’s beliefs by more as a result—than the information contained in a typical campaign
ad. Moreover, as we emphasize above, there are many ways in which our estimates could
understate true exposure. We only measure the number of stories read and remembered,
and the excluded stories seen on news feeds but not read, or read but not remembered, could
have had a large impact. Our fake news database is incomplete, and the effect of the stories
it omits could also be significant.
We also note that there are several ways in which this back-of-the-envelope
calculation is conservative, in the sense that it could overstate the importance of fake news.
We consider the number of stories voters read regardless of whether they believed them.
We do not account for diminishing returns, which could reduce fake news’ effect to the
extent that a small number of voters see a large number of stories. Also, this rough
calculation does not explicitly take into account the fact that a large share of pro-Trump
fake news is seen by voters who are already predisposed to vote for Trump—the larger this
selective exposure, the smaller the impact we would expect of fake news on vote shares.
To the extent that fake news imposes social costs, what can and should be done? In
theory, a social planner should want to address the market failures that lead to distortions,
which would take the form of increasing information about the state of the world and
increasing incentives for news consumers to infer the true state of the world. In practice,
social media platforms and advertising networks have faced some pressure from consumers
and civil society to reduce the prevalence of fake news on their systems. For example, both
Facebook and Google are removing fake news sites Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow
233
 from their advertising platforms on the grounds that they violate policies against
misleading content (Wingfield, Isaac, and Benner 2016). Furthermore, Facebook has taken
steps to identify fake news articles, flag false articles as “disputed by 3rd party fact-
checkers,” show fewer potentially false articles in users’ news feeds, and help users avoid
accidentally sharing false articles by notifying them that a story is “disputed by 3rd parties”
before they share it (Mosseri 2016). In our theoretical framework, these actions may
increase social welfare, but identifying fake news sites and articles also raises important
questions about who becomes the arbiter of truth.

■ We thank David Deming, Brendan Nyhan, Craig Silverman, Aaron Smith, Joe Uscinski,
David Vannette, and many other colleagues for helpful conversations and feedback. We
are grateful to Chuan Yu and Nano Barahona for research assistance, and we thank
Stanford University for financial support. Our survey was determined to be exempt from
human subjects review by the NYU and Stanford Institutional Review Boards.
References https://docs.
google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ysnzawW6pDG
BEqbXqeYuzWa7Rx2mQUip6CXUUUk4jIk/
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders.
edit#gid=1756764129.
2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” Journal of Politics
Cassino, Dan, and Krista Jenkins. 2013.
70(2): 542–55.
“Conspiracy Theories Prosper: 25% of Americans Are
American Enterprise Institute. 2013. “Public
‘Truthers.’” Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Public
Opinion on Conspiracy Theories.” AEI Public
Mind Poll. January 17. http://publicmind.
Opinion Study. Compiled by Karlyn Bowman and
fdu.edu/2013/outthere.
Andrew Rugg. November, https://www.aei.org/
Chapman University. 2016. “What Aren’t They
wp-content/uploads/2013/11/-public-opinionon-
Telling Us?” Chapman University Survey of American
conspiracy-theories_181649218739.pdf.
Fears. October 11. https://blogs.chapman.
American National Election Studies. 2010.
edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/what-arent-theytelling-us/.
Times Series Cumulative Data File [dataset].
DellaVigna, Stefano, and Matthew Gentzkow.
Produced and distributed by Stanford University
2010. “Persuasion: Empirical Evidence.” Annual
and the University of Michigan. http://www.
Review of Economics 2: 643–69.
electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_timeseries_
DellaVigna, Stefano, and Ethan Kaplan. 2007.
cdf/anes_timeseries_cdf.htm.
“The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.”
Bagdikian, Ben H. 1983. The Media Monopoly.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(3): 1187–1234.
Beacon Press.
Dewey, Caitlin. 2014. “This Is Not an Interview
Bakshy, Eytan, Solomon Messing, and Lada
with Banksy.” Washington Post, October 22. https://
A. Adamic. 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/
Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook.” Science
wp/2014/10/21/this-is-not-an-interview-
348(6239): 1130–32.
withbanksy/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.8a9 5d83438e9.
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received:
Dewey, Caitlin. 2016. “Facebook Fake-News
The Political Impact of Media Exposure.”
Writer: ‘I Think Donald Trump is in the White House
American Political Science Review 87(2): 267–85.
because of Me.’” Washington Post, November, 17.
Berinsky, Adam J. 2017. “Rumors and Health
https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/the-
Care Reform: Experiments in Political
intersect/wp/2016/11/17/ facebook-fake-news-writer-
Misinformation.” British Journal of Political
i-think-donald-trump-isin-the-white-house-because-
Science 47(2): 241–62.
of-me/.
Brayton, Ed. 2016. “Please Stop Sharing Links
DiFonzo, Nicholas, and Prashant Bordia. 2007.
to These Sites.” Patheos, September 18.
Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational
http://www.
Approaches. American Psychological Association.
patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/09/18/ please-
Enikolopov, Ruben, Maria Petrova, and
stop-sharing-links-to-these-sites/.
Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. 2011. “Media and Political
Bullock, John G., Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill,
Persuasion: Evidence from Russia.” American
and Gregory A. Huber. 2015. “Partisan Bias in
Economic Review 101(7): 3253–85. Eventbrite. 2012.
Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of
“Social Commerce: A Global Look at the Numbers.”
Political Science 10(4): 519–78. BuzzFeed News. No
date. “Election Content Engagement.” [A spreadsheet]
234 Journal of Economic Perspectives
October 23. https://www. eventbrite.com/blog/ds00- Keeley, Brian L. 1999. “Of Conspiracy Theories.”
social-commerce-aglobal-look-at-the-numbers/. Journal of Philosophy 96(3): 109–26.
Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. Lang, Kurt, and Gladys Engel Lang. 2002.
“Political Polarization in the American Public.” Television and Politics. Transaction Publishers.
Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563–88. Lelkes, Yphtach. 2016. “Mass Polarization:
Flaxman, Seth, Sharad Goel, and Justin M. Rao. Manifestations and Measurements.” Public
2016. “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 392–410.
News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80(1): Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac,
298–320. and Klaus Oberauer. 2013. “The Role of
Flynn, D. J., Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in
2017. “The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Predicting Rejection of Science.” PloS One 8(10):
Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about e75637.
Politics.” Advances in Political Psychology 38(S1): Malka, Ariel, Jon A. Krosnick, and Gary
127–50. Langer. 2009. “The Association of Knowledge
Friggeri, Adrien, Lada Adamic, Dean Eckles, with Concern about Global Warming: Trusted
and Justin Cheng. 2014. “Rumor Cascades.” Eighth Information Sources Shape Public Thinking.” Risk
International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Analysis 29(5): 633–47.
Social Media. Martin, Gregory J., and Ali Yurukoglu. 2014.
Gentzkow, Matthew, and Jesse M. Shapiro. “Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization.”
2006. “Media Bias and Reputation.” Journal of NBER Working Paper 20798.
Political Economy 114(2): 280–316. McClosky, Herbert, and Dennis Chong. 1985.
Gentzkow, Matthew, and Jesse M. Shapiro. “Similarities and Differences between Left-Wing
2011. “Ideological Segregation Online and Offline.” and Right-Wing Radicals.” British Journal of
Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4): 1799–1839. Political Science 15(3): 329–63.
Gentzkow, Matthew, Jesse M. Shapiro, and Mosseri Adam. 2016. “News Feed FYI:
Daniel F. Stone. 2016. “Media Bias in the Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News.” Newsroom,
Marketplace: Theory.” Chap. 14 in Handbook of Facebook, December 15. http://newsroom.fb.
Media Economics, vol. 1B, edited by Simon Anderson, com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-
Joel Waldofgel, and David Stromberg. addressinghoaxes-and-fake-news/.
Gerber, Alan S., James G. Gimpel, Donald P. Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Andrei Shleifer.
Green, and Daron R. Shaw. 2011. “How Large and 2005. “The Market for News.” American Economic
Long-lasting are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Review 95(4): 1031–53.
Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Napoli, Philip M. 2014. “Measuring Media
Experiment.” American Political Science Review Impact: An Overview of the Field.” Norman Lear
105(1): 135–150. Center Media Impact Project. https://learcenter.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. org/pdf/measuringmedia.pdf.
“The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Novak, Jessica. No date. “Quantifying Virality:
Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” The Visits to Share Ratio.” http://intelligence.r29.
American Political Science Review 94(3): 653–63. com/post/105605860880/quantifying-virality-
Gerber, Alan S., and Gregory A. Huber. 2009. thevisits-to-shares-ratio.
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election 235
“Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Nyhan, Brendan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey,
Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real and Gary L. Freed. 2014. “Effective Messages in
Economic Behavior?” American Political Science Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial.”
Review 103(3): 407–26. Pediatrics 133(4): 835–42.
Gottfried, Jeffrey, and Elisa Shearer. 2016. Nyhan, Brendan, Jason Reifler, and Peter A.
“News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016.” Ubel. 2013. “The Hazards of Correcting Myths
Pew Research Center, May 26. http://www. about Health Care Reform.” Medical Care 51(2):
journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-acrosssocial- 127–32.
media-platforms-2016. Oliver, J. Eric, and Thomas J. Wood. 2014.
Guess, Andrew M. 2015. “Measure for “Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of
Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Mass Opinion.” American Journal of Political
Media Exposure.” Political Analysis 23(1): 59–75. Science 58(4): 952–66.
Huber, Gregory A., and Kevin Arceneaux. 2007. Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the
“Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin UK.
Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science Parkinson, Hannah Jane. 2016. “Click and
51(4): 957–77. Elect: How Fake News Helped Donald Trump Win
Kaplan, Richard L. 2002. Politics and the a Real Election.” Guardian, November 14.
American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865–1920.
Cambridge University Press.
 PolitiFact. No date. http://www.politifact.com/ Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3):
truth-o-meter/elections/2016/president- 755–69.
unitedstates/. Townsend, Tess. 2016. “Meet the Romanian
Price, Vincent, and John Zaller. 1993. “Who Trump Fan behind a Major Fake News Site.” Inc.
Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News http://www. inc.com/tess-townsend/ending-fedtrump-
Reception and Their Implications for Research.” facebook.html.
Public Opinion Quarterly 57(2): 133–64. Uscinski, Joseph E., Casey Klofstad, and
Prior, Markus. 2009. “The Immensely Inflated Matthew D. Atkinson. 2016. “What Drives
News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported Conspiratorial Beliefs? The Role of Informational
News Exposure.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73(1): Cues and Predispositions.” Political Research
130–43. Quarterly 69(1): 57–71.
Prior, Markus. 2013. “Media and Political Wingfield, Nick, Mike Isaac, and Katie Benner.
Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science 2016.” Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News
16: 101–27. Sites.” New York Times, November 14.
Prior, Markus, Gaurav Sood, and Kabir Yeager, David S., Jon A. Krosnick, LinChiat
Khanna. 2015. “You Cannot Be Serious: The Chang, Harold S. Javitz, Matthew S. Levendusky,
Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Alberto Simpser, and Rui Wang. 2011. “Comparing
Reports of Economic Perceptions.” Quarterly the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet
Journal of Political Science 10(4): 489–518. Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-
Read, Max. 2016. “Donald Trump Won Probability Samples.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(4):
because of Facebook.” New York Magazine, 709–47.
November 9. Zhao, Junzhou, Pinghui Wang, Jing Tao, Xiaobo
Silverman, Craig. 2016. “This Analysis Shows Ma, and Xiaohong Guan. 2013. “A Peep on the
how Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Interplays between Online Video Websites and Online
Real News on Facebook.” BuzzFeed News, Social Networks.” ariXiv:1305.4018.
November 16. Zimdars, Melissa. 2016. “False, Misleading,
Silverman, Craig and Jeremy Singer-Vine. Clickbait-y, and Satirical ‘News’ Sources.”
2016. “Most Americans Who See Fake News http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/
Believe It, New Survey Says.” BuzzFeed News, wp/2016/11/Resource-False-Misleading-Clickbaity-
December 6. and-Satirical-%E2%80%9CNews%E2%80%9D-
Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations. Sources-1.pdf.
London: W. Strahan.
Spenkuch, Jörg L., and David Toniatti. 2016.
“Political Advertising and Election Outcomes.”
CESifo Working Paper Series 5780.
Subramanian, Samanth. 2017. “Inside the
Macedonian Fake-News Complex, Wired,
February 15.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2001a. Echo Chambers: Bush v.
Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton University
Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2001b. Republic.com. Princeton
University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2007. Republic.com 2.0.
Princeton University Press.
Swift, Art. 2016. “Americans’ Trust in Mass Media
Sinks to New Low.” Gallup, September 14.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americanstrust-
mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx.
Sydell, Laura. 2016. “We Tracked Down a Fake-
News Creator in the Suburbs. Here’s What We
Learned.” National Public Radio, November 23.
http://www.npr.org/sections/
alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/ npr-finds-
the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operationin-the-
suburbs.
Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006.
“Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political
236 Journal of Economic Perspectives
 This article has been cited by:

1. Björn Bebensee, Nagmat Nazarov, Byoung-Tak Zhang. 2021. Leveraging

node neighborhoods andegograph topology for better bot detection
in social graphs. Social Network Analysis and Mining 11:1. .
[Crossref]
2. Yogev Matalon, Ofir Magdaci, Adam Almozlino, Dan Yamin. 2021. Using
sentiment analysis topredict opinion inversion in Tweets of
political communication. Scientific Reports 11:1. . [Crossref]
3. Didem Pehlivanoglu, Tian Lin, Farha Deceus, Amber Heemskerk,
Natalie C. Ebner, Brian S. Cahill.2021. The role of analytical
reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and
fake fulllength news articles. Cognitive Research: Principles and
Implications 6:1. . [Crossref]
4. Priscila Biancovilli, Lilla Makszin, Alexandra Csongor. 2021.
Breast cancer on social media: a qualiquantitative study on the
credibility and content type of the most shared news stories. BMC
Women's Health 21:1. . [Crossref]
5. Amy J. Lim, Edison Tan, Tania Lim. 2021. Infodemic: the effect of
death-related thoughts on newssharing. Cognitive Research:
Principles and Implications 6:1. . [Crossref]
6. Fernando C. Erd, André L. Vignatti, Murilo V. G. da Silva. 2021.
The generalized influence blockingmaximization problem. Social
Network Analysis and Mining 11:1. . [Crossref]
7. Thirunavukarasu Balasubramaniam, Richi Nayak, Khanh Luong, Md.
Abul Bashar. 2021. IdentifyingCovid-19 misinformation tweets and
learning their spatio-temporal topic dynamics using Nonnegative
Coupled Matrix Tensor Factorization. Social Network Analysis and
Mining 11:1. . [Crossref]
8. Bryan Fong. 2021. Analysing the behavioural finance impact of 'fake
news' phenomena on financialmarkets: a representative agent model
and empirical validation. Financial Innovation 7:1. . [Crossref]
9. Te Bao, Bin Liang, Yohanes E. Riyanto. 2021. Unpacking the negative
welfare effect of social media: Evidence from a large scale
nationally representative time-use survey in China. China Economic
Review 69, 101650. [Crossref]
10. Lea S. Nahon, Sarah Teige-Mocigemba, Rolf Reber, Rainer
Greifeneder. 2021. Truth feels easy: Knowing information is true
enhances experienced processing fluency. Cognition 215, 104819.
[Crossref]
11. Junxiao Xue, Yabo Wang, Yichen Tian, Yafei Li, Lei Shi, Lin Wei.
2021. Detecting fake news byexploring the consistency of
multimodal data. Information Processing & Management 58:5, 102610.
[Crossref]
12. Rina Kumari, Nischal Ashok, Tirthankar Ghosal, Asif Ekbal. 2021.
Misinformation detection usingmultitask learning with mutual
 learning for novelty detection and emotion recognition.
Information Processing & Management 58:5, 102631. [Crossref]
13. Cristina L. Lash. 2021. Multicultural citizenship education as
resistance: Student politicaldevelopment in an anti-immigrant
national climate. Teaching and Teacher Education 105, 103405.
[Crossref]
14. Marta Pérez-Escolar, Eva Ordóñez-Olmedo, Purificación Alcaide-
Pulido. 2021. Fact-Checking SkillsAnd Project-Based Learning About
Infodemic And Disinformation. Thinking Skills and Creativity 41,
100887. [Crossref]
15. Deena Isom, Hunter Boehme, Toniqua Mikell, Stephen Chicoine,
Marion Renner. 2021. StatusThreat, Social Concerns, and
Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right.
Societies 11:3, 72. [Crossref]
16. Sijing Chen, Lu Xiao, Jin Mao. 2021. Persuasion strategies of
misinformation-containing posts inthe social media. Information
Processing & Management 58:5, 102665. [Crossref]
17. Christian Scheibenzuber, Sarah Hofer, Nicolae Nistor. 2021.
Designing for fake news literacy training:
A problem-based undergraduate online-course. Computers in Human
Behavior 121, 106796. [Crossref]
18. William Scott Paka, Rachit Bansal, Abhay Kaushik, Shubhashis
Sengupta, Tanmoy Chakraborty.2021. Cross-SEAN: A cross-stitch
semi-supervised neural attention model for COVID-19 fake news
detection. Applied Soft Computing 107, 107393. [Crossref]
19. Toan Luu Duc Huynh, Matteo Foglia, Muhammad Ali Nasir, Eliana
Angelini. 2021. Feverishsentiment and global equity markets during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
188, 1088-1108. [Crossref]
20. Mary C Lacity. 2021. Fake news, technology and ethics: Can AI and
blockchains restore integrity?.Journal of Information Technology
Teaching Cases 18, 204388692199906. [Crossref]
21. Bijoy Rakshit, Yadawananda Neog. 2021. Effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on stock market returnsand volatilities: evidence from
selected emerging economies. Studies in Economics and Finance
aheadof-print:ahead-of-print. . [Crossref]
22. Scott Wright. 2021. Discourses of fake news. Journal of Language
and Politics 13. . [Crossref]
23. Adam M. Enders, Joseph E. Uscinski, Michelle I. Seelig, Casey A.
Klofstad, Stefan Wuchty, John R.Funchion, Manohar N. Murthi, Kamal
Premaratne, Justin Stoler. 2021. The Relationship Between Social
Media Use and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation.
Political Behavior 31. . [Crossref]
24. Rex P. Bringula, Annaliza E. Catacutan-Bangit, Manuel B. Garcia,
John Paul S. Gonzales, ArleneMae C. Valderama. 2021. “ Who is
gullible to political disinformation ?” : predicting
 susceptibility of university students to fake news. Journal of
Information Technology & Politics 24, 1-15. [Crossref]
25. Neetu Rani, Prasenjit Das, Amit Kumar Bhardwaj. 2021. Rumor,
misinformation among web: Acontemporary review of rumor detection
techniques during different web waves. Concurrency and
Computation: Practice and Experience 14. . [Crossref]
26. Jiaxin Chen, Zekai Wu, Zhenguo Yang, Haoran Xie, Fu Lee Wang,
Wenyin Liu. Multimodal FusionNetwork with Latent Topic Memory for
Rumor Detection 1-6. [Crossref]
27. Yonathan Dri Handarkho, Dhyah Ayu Retno Widyastuti, Yulius
Harjoseputro. 2021. The effect of thesocial aspect, media
dependency, and uncertainty against the formation of Trust toward
information in social network sites: A case study of COVID‐19
information in Indonesia. The Electronic Journal of Information
Systems in Developing Countries 2. . [Crossref]
28. M. Rosie Jahng, Elizabeth Stoycheff, Annisa Rochadiat. 2021. They
Said It’s “Fake“: Effectsof Discounting Cues in Online Comments
on Information Quality Judgments and Information Authentication.
Mass Communication and Society 24:4, 527-552. [Crossref]
29. Nathan Walter, Nikita A. Salovich. 2021. Unchecked vs.
Uncheckable: How Opinion-Based ClaimsCan Impede Corrections of
Misinformation. Mass Communication and Society 24:4, 500-526.
[Crossref]
30. Sebastian W. Schuetz, Tracy Ann Sykes, Viswanath Venkatesh. 2021.
Combating COVID-19 fakenews on social media through fact checking:
antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Information
Systems 30:4, 376-388. [Crossref]
31. Manuel Hensmans. 2021. Exploring the dark and bright sides of
Internet democracy: Ethos-reversingand ethos-renewing digital
transformation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 168,
120777. [Crossref]
32. Chelsea L. Horne. 2021. Internet governance in the “post-truth
era”: Analyzing key topics in “fakenews” discussions at IGF.
Telecommunications Policy 45:6, 102150. [Crossref]
33. Kiyoung Chang, Jeeyoung Park. 2021. Social Media Use and
Participation in Dueling Protests: TheCase of the 2016–2017
Presidential Corruption Scandal in South Korea. The International
Journal of Press/Politics 26:3, 547-567. [Crossref]
34. Alena Bermes. 2021. Information overload and fake news sharing: A
transactional stress perspectiveexploring the mitigating role of
consumers’ resilience during COVID-19. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 61, 102555. [Crossref]
35. Christoph Engel, Sebastian Kube, Michael Kurschilgen. 2021.
Managing expectations: How selectiveinformation affects
cooperation and punishment in social dilemma games. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 187, 111-136. [Crossref]
36. Timothy J. Ryan, Amanda R. Aziz. 2021. Is the Political Right More
Credulous? ExperimentalEvidence against Asymmetric Motivations to
Believe False Political Information. The Journal of Politics 83:3,
1168-1172. [Crossref]
37. Vikram R. Bhargava, Manuel Velasquez. 2021. Ethics of the Attention
Economy: The Problem ofSocial Media Addiction. Business Ethics
Quarterly 31:3, 321-359. [Crossref]
38. Javier Serrano-Puche. 2021. Digital disinformation and emotions:
exploring the social risks of affectivepolarization. International
Review of Sociology 31, 1-15. [Crossref]
39. Roy Darioshi, Eyal Lahav. 2021. The impact of technology on the
human decision‐making process.Human Behavior and Emerging
Technologies 3:3, 391-400. [Crossref]
40. Cheuk Hang Au, Kevin K.W. Ho, Dickson K.W. Chiu. 2021. Does
political extremity harm the abilityto identify online information
validity? Testing the impact of polarisation through online
experiments. Government Information Quarterly 31, 101602.
[Crossref]
41. Kyung-Sun Kim, Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, EunYoung Yoo-Lee. 2021. Use
and evaluation of informationfrom social media: A longitudinal
cohort study. Library & Information Science Research 43:3, 101104.
[Crossref]
42. Jay Jennings, Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2021. Asymmetric adjustment:
Partisanship and correctingmisinformation on Facebook. New Media
& Society 8, 146144482110217. [Crossref]
43. Charles Olney. 2021. Crypto-punditry and the media neutrality
crisis. Atlantic Journal of Communication 42, 1-18. [Crossref]
44. Archita Pathak, Rohini K. Srihari, Nihit Natu. 2021.
Disinformation: analysis and identification.Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory 31. . [Crossref]
45. SUMITRA BADRINATHAN. 2021. Educative Interventions to Combat
Misinformation: Evidencefrom a Field Experiment in India. American
Political Science Review 28, 1-17. [Crossref]
46. Halil SAÇ, Aslıhan ARDIÇ ÇOBANER. 2021. İnfodemide Sorumlu
Habercilik: Covid-19 SalgınınHaberleştirilmesine Yönelik
Yayımlanan İlke ve Rehberler Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Aksaray
İletişim Dergisi . [Crossref]
47. Xueqin Chen, Fan Zhou, Fengli Zhang, Marcello Bonsangue. 2021.
Modeling microscopic andmacroscopic information diffusion for
rumor detection. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 31.
. [Crossref]
48. Sebastián Valenzuela, Daniel Halpern, Felipe Araneda. 2021. A
Downward Spiral? A Panel Studyof Misinformation and Media Trust
in Chile. The International Journal of Press/Politics 1,
194016122110252. [Crossref]
49. Anthony P. Young, Sagar Joglekar, Gioia Boschi, Nishanth Sastry.
2021. Ranking comment sortingpolicies in online debates. Argument
& Computation 12:2, 265-285. [Crossref]
50. Wagner Junior Ladeira, Marlon Dalmoro, Fernando de Oliveira
Santini, William Carvalho Jardim.2021. Visual cognition of fake
news: the effects of consumer brand engagement. Journal of
Marketing Communications 5, 1-21. [Crossref]
51. Shaozeng Zhang, Bo Zhao, Yuanyuan Tian, Shenliang Chen. 2021. Stand
with #StandingRock: Envisioning an Epistemological Shift in
Understanding Geospatial Big Data in the “Post-truth” Era. Annals
of the American Association of Geographers 111:4, 1025-1045.
[Crossref]
52. Anirudh Sridhar, H. Vincent Poor. Bayes-Optimal Methods for
Finding the Source of a Cascade5190-5194. [Crossref]
53. Gioia Boschi, Anthony P. Young, Sagar Joglekar, Chiara Cammarota,
Nishanth Sastry. 2021. WhoHas the Last Word? Understanding How to
Sample Online Discussions. ACM Transactions on the Web 15:3, 1-
25. [Crossref]
54. Dean Neu, Gregory D. Saxton, Abu S. Rahaman. 2021. Social
Accountability, Ethics, and the OccupyWall Street Protests.
Journal of Business Ethics 31. . [Crossref]
55. Bin Guo, Yasan Ding, Yueheng Sun, Shuai Ma, Ke Li, Zhiwen Yu. 2021.
The mass, fake news, andcognition security. Frontiers of Computer
Science 15:3. . [Crossref]
56. Ulrike Reisach. 2021. The responsibility of social media in times
of societal and political manipulation.European Journal of
Operational Research 291:3, 906-917. [Crossref]
57. Alexander C. Walker, Martin Harry Turpin, Ethan A. Meyers, Jennifer
A. Stolz, Jonathan A.Fugelsang, Derek J. Koehler. 2021.
Controlling the narrative: Euphemistic language affects judgments
of actions while avoiding perceptions of dishonesty. Cognition
211, 104633. [Crossref]
58. Sajjad Dadkhah, Farzaneh Shoeleh, Mohammad Mehdi Yadollahi, Xichen
Zhang, Ali A. Ghorbani.2021. A real-time hostile activities
analyses and detection system. Applied Soft Computing 104, 107175.
[Crossref]
59. Zazli Lily Wisker, Robert Neil McKie. 2021. The effect of fake
news on anger and negative word-ofmouth: moderating roles of
religiosity and conservatism. Journal of Marketing Analytics 9:2,
144-153. [Crossref]
60. Junaed Younus Khan, Md. Tawkat Islam Khondaker, Sadia Afroz, Gias
Uddin, Anindya Iqbal. 2021. A benchmark study of machine learning
models for online fake news detection. Machine Learning with
Applications 4, 100032. [Crossref]
61. João Pedro Baptista, Elisete Correia, Anabela Gradim, Valeriano
Piñeiro-Naval. 2021. The Influenceof Political Ideology on Fake
News Belief: The Portuguese Case. Publications 9:2, 23. [Crossref]
62. Matthew Spradling, Jeremy Straub, Jay Strong. 2021. Protection
from ‘Fake News’: The Need forDescriptive Factual Labeling for
Online Content. Future Internet 13:6, 142. [Crossref]
63. R. Kelly Garrett, Robert M. Bond. 2021. Conservatives’
susceptibility to political misperceptions.Science Advances 7:23,
eabf1234. [Crossref]
64. Tanveer Khan, Antonis Michalas, Adnan Akhunzada. 2021. Fake news
outbreak 2021: Can we stopthe viral spread?. Journal of Network
and Computer Applications 79, 103112. [Crossref]
65. Miguel A. Alonso, David Vilares, Carlos Gómez-Rodríguez, Jesús
Vilares. 2021. Sentiment Analysisfor Fake News Detection.
Electronics 10:11, 1348. [Crossref]
66. Iwona Leonowicz-Bukała, Andrzej Adamski, Anna Jupowicz-Ginalska.
2021. Twitter in MarketingPractice of the Religious Media. An
Empirical Study on Catholic Weeklies in Poland. Religions 12:6,
421. [Crossref]
67. Alessandra Casarico, Mirco Tonin. 2021. A field experiment on
fundraising to support independentinformation. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 186, 227-250. [Crossref]
68. Raúl Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, Cande Sánchez-Olmos, Tatiana Hidalgo-
Marí, Estela Saquete-Boro. 2021. Memetics of Deception: Spreading
Local Meme Hoaxes during COVID-19 1st Year. Future Internet 13:6,
152. [Crossref]
69. Christopher Till. 2021. Propaganda through ‘reflexive control’ and
the mediated construction ofreality. New Media & Society 23:6,
1362-1378. [Crossref]
70. Lauryn E. Garner, Dean Mckay, Sandra L. Cepeda, Eric A. Storch.
2021. The Impact of Conservatismand Elected Party Representation
on Mental Health Outcomes During Major Elections. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology 40:3, 221-248. [Crossref]
71. Sumeet Kumar, Binxuan Huang, Ramon Alfonso Villa Cox, Kathleen M.
Carley. 2021. Ananatomical comparison of fake-news and trusted-
news sharing pattern on Twitter. Computational and Mathematical
Organization Theory 27:2, 109-133. [Crossref]
72. Simone Leonardi, Giuseppe Rizzo, Maurizio Morisio. 2021. Automated
Classification of Fake NewsSpreaders to Break the Misinformation
Chain. Information 12:6, 248. [Crossref]
73. Ivan Herrera-Peco, Beatriz Jiménez-Gómez, Carlos Santiago Romero
Magdalena, Juan José Deudero,María García-Puente, Elvira Benítez
De Gracia, Carlos Ruiz Núñez. 2021. Antivaccine Movement and COVID-
19 Negationism: A Content Analysis of Spanish-Written Messages on
Twitter. Vaccines 9:6, 656. [Crossref]
74. Sergio Mauricio Martinez Monterrubio, Amaya Noain-Sánchez, Elena
Verdú Pérez, Rubén GonzálezCrespo. 2021. Coronavirus fake news
detection via MedOSINT check in Health care official Bulletins
with CBR explanation. Information Sciences . [Crossref]
75. Monika Choudhary, Satyendra Singh Chouhan, Emmanuel S. Pilli,
Santosh Kumar Vipparthi. 2021. BerConvoNet: A deep learning
framework for fake news classification. Applied Soft Computing 10,
107614. [Crossref]
76. Pat Devlin, Jeremy Kepner, Ashley Luo, Erin Meger. Hybrid Power-
Law Models of Network Traffic280-287. [Crossref]
77. Nereida Cea Esteruelas, Aida María de Vicente Domínguez. 2021. La
información de actualidad enlas redes sociales: análisis de uso y
percepción de credibilidad. Monograma Revista Iberoamericana de
Cultura y Pensamiento :8, 103-129. [Crossref]
78. Giandomenico Di Domenico, Annamaria Tuan, Marco Visentin. 2021.
Linguistic drivers ofmisinformation diffusion on social media
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Italian Journal of Marketing 22. .
[Crossref]
79. Cloé Gratton, Henry Markovits. 2021. Reasoning strategies
determine the effect of disconfirmationon belief in false claims.
Memory & Cognition 31. . [Crossref]
80. Rui Alexandre Novais. 2021. Veracity Pledge or Discreditation
Strategy? Accusations of LegacyDisinformation in Presidential
Campaigns in Cabo Verde. Southern Communication Journal 86:3, 201-
214. [Crossref]
81. Konstantinos Sipitanos. 2021. Raising awareness against fake news
to protect democracy: the myth ofIslamophobia in Trump's speech.
Social Semiotics 11, 1-17. [Crossref]
82. Chingching Chang. 2021. Fake News: Audience Perceptions and
Concerted Coping Strategies. Digital Journalism 6, 1-24.
[Crossref]
83. Kai Riemer, Sandra Peter. 2021. Algorithmic audiencing: Why we
need to rethink free speech onsocial media. Journal of Information
Technology 51, 026839622110133. [Crossref]
84. Henri Boullier, Baptiste Kotras, Ignacio Siles. 2021. Savoirs
incertains. Étudier « complots » et « vérités» à l’ère numérique.
RESET :10. . [Crossref]
85. Henri Boullier, Baptiste Kotras, Ignacio Siles. 2021. Uncertain
Knowledge. Studying “Truth” and“Conspiracies” in the Digital Age.
RESET :10. . [Crossref]
86. Romain Badouard. 2021. Fausses informations, vraies indignations
?. RESET :10. . [Crossref]
87. Lauren A. Ricciardelli, Adam E. Quinn, Larry Nackerud. 2021. “Human
behavior and the socialmedia environment”: group differences in
social media attitudes and knowledge among U.S. social work
students. Social Work Education 40:4, 473-491. [Crossref]
88. Oliver Kovacs. 2021. The Hungarian eurology – the road to
perdition?. Post-Communist Economies 33:4, 435-457. [Crossref]
89. Mahyuddin Daud, Ida Madieha Abd Ghani Azmi. 2021. Digital
Disinformation and the Need forInternet Co-regulation in Malaysia.
 Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 29:S2. .
[Crossref]
90. Arjun Roy, Pavlos Fafalios, Asif Ekbal, Xiaofei Zhu, Stefan Dietze.
2021. Exploiting stance hierarchiesfor cost-sensitive stance
detection of Web documents. Journal of Intelligent Information
Systems 31. . [Crossref]
91. Wladimir Gramacho, Mathieu Turgeon, John Kennedy, Max Stabile,
Pedro Santos Mundim. 2021. Political Preferences, Knowledge, and
Misinformation About COVID-19: The Case of Brazil.
Frontiers in Political Science 3. . [Crossref]
92. Zazli Lily Wisker. 2021. The effect of fake news in marketing halal
food: a moderating role ofreligiosity. Journal of Islamic
Marketing 12:3, 558-575. [Crossref]
93. Anita S. Tseng, Sade Bonilla, Anna MacPherson. 2021. Fighting “bad
science” in the information age: The effects of an intervention
to stimulate evaluation and critique of false scientific claims.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 9. . [Crossref]
94. Nicky Chang Bi, Yanqin Lu, Louisa Ha, Peiqin Chen. 2021. Attitude
change toward the Chineseduring the US-China trade conflict:
examining the roles of social media news sharing and perceived
news feed performance. Online Information Review 45:3, 599-613.
[Crossref]
95. Thomas W. Sanchez. 2021. Urban Planning Academics and Twitter: Who
and what?. Journal of Altmetrics 4:1. . [Crossref]
96. Carlos Rodríguez-Pérez. 2021. Desinformación online y fact-
checking en entornos de polarizaciónsocial. Estudios sobre el
Mensaje Periodístico 27:2, 623-637. [Crossref]
97. Deena A. Isom, Toniqua C. Mikell, Hunter M. Boehme. 2021. White
America, threat to the statusquo, and affiliation with the alt-
right: a qualitative approach. Sociological Spectrum 41:3, 213-
228. [Crossref]
98. Joshua Uyheng, Lynnette Hui Xian Ng, Kathleen M. Carley. 2021.
Active, aggressive, but tolittle avail: characterizing bot
activity during the 2020 Singaporean elections. Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory 31. . [Crossref]
99. Dustin P. Calvillo, Ryan J.B. Garcia, Kiana Bertrand, Tommi A.
Mayers. 2021. Personality factorsand self-reported political news
consumption predict susceptibility to political fake news.
Personality and Individual Differences 174, 110666. [Crossref]
100. Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand. 2021. The Psychology of Fake
News. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25:5, 388-402. [Crossref]
101. Alejandro G. Martín, Alberto Fernández-Isabel, César González-
Fernández, Carmen Lancho, MarinaCuesta, Isaac Martín de Diego.
2021. Suspicious news detection through semantic and sentiment
measures. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 101,
104230. [Crossref]
102. Antonis Kalogeropoulos. 2021. Who shares news on mobile
messaging applications, why and in whatways? A cross-national
analysis. Mobile Media & Communication 9:2, 336-352. [Crossref]
103. Eleni Kapantai, Androniki Christopoulou, Christos Berberidis,
Vassilios Peristeras. 2021. A systematicliterature review on
disinformation: Toward a unified taxonomical framework. New Media
& Society 23:5, 1301-1326. [Crossref]
104. Samuel C. Rhodes. 2021. Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Fake
News: How Social MediaConditions Individuals to Be Less Critical
of Political Misinformation. Political Communication 1, 1-22.
[Crossref]
105. B Siregar, I Habibie, E B Nababan, Fahmi. 2021. Identification
of Indonesian clickbait news headlineswith long short-term memory
recurrent neural network algorithm. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series 1882:1, 012129. [Crossref]
106. Mengling Zhou, Fanglin Chen, Zhongfei Chen. 2021. Can CEO
education promote environmentalinnovation: Evidence from Chinese
enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production 297, 126725. [Crossref]
107. Maria João Silva, Paulo Santos. 2021. The Impact of Health
Literacy on Knowledge and Attitudestowards Preventive Strategies
against COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 18:10, 5421.
[Crossref]
108. Jinshuo Liu, Chenyang Wang, Chenxi Li, Ningxi Li, Juan Deng,
Jeff Z. Pan. 2021. DTN: Deeptriple network for topic specific fake
news detection. Journal of Web Semantics 31, 100646. [Crossref]
109. Cheuk Hang Au, Kevin K.W. Ho, Dickson K.W. Chiu. 2021. Stopping
healthcare misinformation: The effect of financial incentives and
legislation. Health Policy 125:5, 627-633. [Crossref]
110. Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman. 2021. Social media and COVID-19
misinformation: how ignorant Facebookusers are?. Heliyon 7:5,
e07144. [Crossref]
111. TRAVIS DYER, EUNJEE KIM. 2021. Anonymous Equity Research.
Journal of Accounting Research 59:2, 575-611. [Crossref]
112. . References 69-88. [Crossref]
113. Yung-Cheng Shen, Crystal T. Lee, Ling-Yen Pan, Chung-Yuan Lee.
2021. Why people spread rumorson social media: developing and
validating a multi-attribute model of online rumor dissemination.
Online Information Review ahead-of-print:ahead-of-print. .
[Crossref]
114. Mi Rosie Jahng, Stine Eckert, Jade Metzger-Riftkin. 2021.
Defending the Profession: U.S. Journalists’Role Understanding in
the Era of Fake News. Journalism Practice 1-19. [Crossref]
115. Zsolt Ziegler. 2021. Michael Polányi’s fiduciary program against
fake news and deepfake in the digitalage. AI & SOCIETY 31. .
[Crossref]
116. Terry Flew. 2021. The Global Trust Deficit Disorder: A
Communications Perspective on Trust inthe Time of Global
Pandemics. Journal of Communication 71:2, 163-186. [Crossref]
117. Ömer Faruk ÖZBEY, Rabia SARIKAYA. 2021. Dördüncü Sınıf
Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel DüşünmeBecerilerinin Gerçek Yaşam
Durumları Üzerinden İncelenmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim
Araştırmacıları Dergisi . [Crossref]
118. Mike Zapp. 2021. International Organisations and the
Proliferation of Scientised Global Reporting,1947–2019. Global
Society 7, 1-20. [Crossref]
119. Ricardo Ribeiro Ferreira. 2021. Liquid Disinformation Tactics:
Overcoming Social MediaCountermeasures through Misleading Content.
Journalism Practice 33, 1-21. [Crossref]
120. Cheuk Hang Au, Kevin K. W. Ho, Dickson K.W. Chiu. 2021. The Role
of Online Misinformationand Fake News in Ideological Polarization:
Barriers, Catalysts, and Implications. Information Systems
Frontiers 31. . [Crossref]
121. Aleksandra Urman, Mykola Makhortykh. 2021. There can be only one
truth: Ideological segregationand online news communities in
Ukraine. Global Media and Communication 5, 174276652110099.
[Crossref]
122. Nida Aslam, Irfan Ullah Khan, Farah Salem Alotaibi, Lama
Abdulaziz Aldaej, Asma KhaledAldubaikil. 2021. Fake Detect: A Deep
Learning Ensemble Model for Fake News Detection. Complexity 2021,
1-8. [Crossref]
123. Duncan J. Watts, David M. Rothschild, Markus Mobius. 2021.
Measuring the news and its impacton democracy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 118:15, e1912443118. [Crossref]
124. Jevin D. West, Carl T. Bergstrom. 2021. Misinformation in and
about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
118:15, e1912444117. [Crossref]
125. Cody Buntain, Richard Bonneau, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A.
Tucker. 2021. YouTubeRecommendations and Effects on Sharing Across
Online Social Platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction 5:CSCW1, 1-26. [Crossref]
126. Adam Moore, Sujin Hong, Laura Cram. 2021. Trust in information,
political identity and the brain:
an interdisciplinary fMRI study. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376:1822, 20200140.
[Crossref]
127. João Pedro Baptista, Anabela Gradim. 2021. “Brave New World” of
Fake News: How it Works. Javnost - The Public 15, 1-18. [Crossref]
128. Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman. 2021. A Thematic Analysis of Misinformation
in India during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Information
& Library Review 15, 1-11. [Crossref]
129. Chelsea Kaufman. 2021. Civic Education in a Fake News Era:
Lessons for the Methods Classroom.Journal of Political Science
Education 17:2, 326-331. [Crossref]
130. Caio V. Meneses Silva, Raphael Silva Fontes, Methanias Colaço
Júnior. 2021. Intelligent Fake NewsDetection: A Systematic
Mapping. Journal of Applied Security Research 16:2, 168-189.
[Crossref]
131. Dean Eckles, Eytan Bakshy. 2021. Bias and High-Dimensional
Adjustment in Observational Studiesof Peer Effects. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 116:534, 507-517. [Crossref]
132. Jie Ren, Hang Dong, Balaji Padmanabhan, Jeffrey V. Nickerson.
2021. How does social mediasentiment impact mass media sentiment?
A study of news in the financial markets. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology 121. .
[Crossref]
133. Saqib Hakak, Mamoun Alazab, Suleman Khan, Thippa Reddy
Gadekallu, Praveen Kumar ReddyMaddikunta, Wazir Zada Khan. 2021.
An ensemble machine learning approach through effective feature
extraction to classify fake news. Future Generation Computer
Systems 117, 47-58. [Crossref]
134. Qiuyi Kong, Kelly-Yee Lai-Ku, Liping Deng, Apple-Chung Yan-Au.
2021. Motivation and perceptionof Hong Kong university students
about social media news. Comunicar 29:67. . [Crossref]
135. Alakananda Mitra, Saraju P. Mohanty, Peter Corcoran, Elias
Kougianos. 2021. A Machine LearningBased Approach for Deepfake
Detection in Social Media Through Key Video Frame Extraction. SN
Computer Science 2:2. . [Crossref]
136. Olga Onuch, Emma Mateo, Julian G. Waller. 2021. Mobilization,
Mass Perceptions, and(Dis)information: “New” and “Old” Media
Consumption Patterns and Protest. Social Media + Society 7:2,
205630512199965. [Crossref]
137. Arjun Rajkhowa. 2021. The concept of authorial legacy in
polarised debate on the ethics of socialmedia-driven activism.
Media, Culture & Society 43:3, 561-569. [Crossref]
138. Kaifia Ancer Laskar, Mohammad Reyaz. 2021. Mapping the fake news
infodemic amidst theCOVID-19 pandemic: A study of Indian fact-
checking websites. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 14:1,
93-116. [Crossref]
139. Teng-Chieh Huang, Razieh Nokhbeh Zaeem, K. Suzanne Barber. 2021.
Identifying Real-world
Credible Experts in the Financial Domain. Digital Threats: Research
and Practice 2:2, 1-14. [Crossref]
140. Pratim Datta, Mark Whitmore, Joseph K. Nwankpa. 2021. A Perfect
Storm. Digital Threats: Research and Practice 2:2, 1-21.
[Crossref]
141. Dongfang Gaozhao. 2021. Flagging fake news on social media: An
experimental study of mediaconsumers' identification of fake news.
Government Information Quarterly 31, 101591. [Crossref]
142. Ángel Gómez-de-Ágreda, Claudio Feijóo, Idoia-Ana Salazar-
García. 2021. Una nueva taxonomía deluso de la imagen en la
conformación interesada del relato digital. Deep fakes e
inteligencia artificial.
El profesional de la información . [Crossref]
143. Brian H. Spitzberg, Ming‐Hsiang Tsou, Mark Gawron. Social Media
Surveillance and
(Dis)Misinformation in the COVID‐19 Pandemic 262-301. [Crossref]
144. Bobi Ivanov, Kimberly A. Parker. Science Communication and
Inoculation 302-319. [Crossref]
145. Brian H. Spitzberg. Comprehending Covidiocy Communication 15-
53. [Crossref]
146. Jessica Wendorf Muhamad, Patrick Merle. Identity and Information
Overload 110-127. [Crossref]
147. Kevin B. Wright. Social Media, Risk Perceptions Related to COVID‐
19, and Health Outcomes128-149. [Crossref]
148. Óscar Espiritusanto, Inès Dinant. Innovative Tools for Citizen
Empowerment in the Fight AgainstMisinformation 202-221. [Crossref]
149. Vartika Pundir, Elangbam Binodini Devi, Vishnu Nath. 2021.
Arresting fake news sharing on socialmedia: a theory of planned
behavior approach. Management Research Review ahead-of-
print:aheadof-print. . [Crossref]
150. Suzana Kert, Igor Švab. 2021. Predatory journals, fake
conferences and misleading social media: Thedark side of medical
information. Slovenian Journal of Public Health 60:2, 79-81.
[Crossref]
151. Katie Byrd, Richard S. John. 2021. Lies, Damned Lies, and Social
Media Following Extreme Events.Risk Analysis 2. . [Crossref]
152. Martin Innes, Diyana Dobreva, Helen Innes. 2021. Disinformation
and digital influencing afterterrorism: spoofing, truthing and
social proofing. Contemporary Social Science 16:2, 241-255.
[Crossref]
153. James A. Piazza. 2021. Fake news: the effects of social media
disinformation on domestic terrorism.Dynamics of Asymmetric
Conflict 8, 1-23. [Crossref]
154. Giandomenico Di Domenico, Daniel Nunan, Jason Sit, Valentina
Pitardi. 2021. Free but fake speech: When giving primacy to the
source decreases misinformation sharing on social media.
Psychology & Marketing 28. . [Crossref]
155. John Martino. Conclusion 159-167. [Crossref]
156. Byron Reeves, Nilam Ram, Thomas N. Robinson, James J. Cummings,
C. Lee Giles, Jennifer Pan,Agnese Chiatti, Mj Cho, Katie Roehrick,
Xiao Yang, Anupriya Gagneja, Miriam Brinberg, Daniel Muise,
 Yingdan Lu, Mufan Luo, Andrew Fitzgerald, Leo Yeykelis. 2021.
Screenomics : A Framework to Capture and Analyze Personal Life
Experiences and the Ways that Technology Shapes Them. Human–
Computer Interaction 36:2, 150-201. [Crossref]
157. Ester Almenar, Sue Aran-Ramspott, Jaume Suau, Pere Masip. 2021.
Gender Differences in TacklingFake News: Different Degrees of
Concern, but Same Problems. Media and Communication 9:1, 229-238.
[Crossref]
158. Joohyun Oh, Jeong-han Kang. 2021. Converting a digital minority
into a digital beneficiary: Digitalskills to improve the need for
cognition among Korean older adults. Information Development 37:1,
21-31. [Crossref]
159. Jiangfeng Zeng, Yin Zhang, Xiao Ma. 2021. Fake news detection
for epidemic emergencies via deepcorrelations between text and
images. Sustainable Cities and Society 66, 102652. [Crossref]
160. Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman. 2021. COVID-19-Related Social Media Fake
News in India. Journalism and Media 2:1, 100-114. [Crossref]
161. Yasmin Dawood. 2021. Combatting Foreign Election Interference:
Canada's Electoral EcosystemApproach to Disinformation and Cyber
Threats. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 20:1,
10-31. [Crossref]
162. Stefano Guarino, Francesco Pierri, Marco Di Giovanni, Alessandro
Celestini. 2021. Informationdisorders during the COVID-19
infodemic: The case of Italian Facebook. Online Social Networks
and Media 22, 100124. [Crossref]
163. Javier Rivas, James Rockey. 2021. Expressive voting with booing
and cheering: Evidence from Britain.European Journal of Political
Economy 67, 101956. [Crossref]
164. Marwan Albahar. 2021. A hybrid model for fake news detection:
Leveraging news content and usercomments in fake news. IET
Information Security 15:2, 169-177. [Crossref]
165. Ahmed Al-Rawi, Oumar Kane, Aimé-Jules Bizimana. 2021. Topic
modelling of public Twitterdiscourses, part bot, part active human
user, on climate change and global warming. Journal of
Environmental Media 2:1, 31-53. [Crossref]
166. Jonathan Clarke, Hailiang Chen, Ding Du, Yu Jeffrey Hu. 2021.
Fake News, Investor Attention, andMarket Reaction. Information
Systems Research 32:1, 35-52. [Crossref]
167. Rohit Kumar Kaliyar, Anurag Goswami, Pratik Narang. 2021.
FakeBERT: Fake news detection insocial media with a BERT-based
deep learning approach. Multimedia Tools and Applications 80:8,
11765-11788. [Crossref]
168. Ahmed Al-Rawi, Oumar Kane, Aimé-Jules Bizimana. 2021. Topic
modelling of public Twitterdiscourses, part bot, part active human
user, on climate change and global warming. Journal of
Environmental Media 2:1, 31-53. [Crossref]
169. 2021. Inroduction on Recent Trends and Perspectives in Fake News
Research. Digital Threats: Research and Practice 2:2, 1-3.
[Crossref]
170. Terry Flew. 2021. Trusting and valuing news in a pandemic:
Attitudes to online news media contentduring COVID-19 and policy
implications. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 12:1, 11-26.
[Crossref]
171. Cornelia Sindermann, Helena Sophia Schmitt, Dmitri Rozgonjuk,
Jon D. Elhai, Christian Montag.2021. The evaluation of fake and
true news: on the role of intelligence, personality, interpersonal
trust, ideological attitudes, and news consumption. Heliyon 7:3,
e06503. [Crossref]
172. Jakub Simko, Patrik Racsko, Matus Tomlein, Martina Hanakova,
Robert Moro, Maria Bielikova.2021. A study of fake news reading
and annotating in social media context. New Review of Hypermedia
and Multimedia 1-31. [Crossref]
173. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Lara Hattatoglu, Anya K. Hsu, Marijn A.
Burger, Michael J. Magee. 2021. The Goldilocks zone: young adults’
credibility perceptions of online news articles based on visual
appearance. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 36, 1-46.
[Crossref]
174. Katherine Haenschen. Conservatives and News Feeds 177-192.
[Crossref]
175. Barbara K. Kaye, Thomas J. Johnson. 2021. “Newstrusting” or
“newsbusting?” heuristic and systematicinformation processing and
trust in media. Atlantic Journal of Communication 5, 1-16.
[Crossref]
176. Kanwal Ameen, Salman Bin Naeem. 2021. Demographic differences
in the perceived news literacyskills and sharing behavior of
information professionals. Information Discovery and Delivery
49:1, 16-28. [Crossref]
177. Catherine Francis Brooks. 2021. Popular Discourse Around
Deepfakes and the InterdisciplinaryChallenge of Fake Video
Distribution. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking .
[Crossref]
178. Akintola Olaniyan, Ufuoma Akpojivi. 2021. Transforming
communication, social media, counterhegemony and the struggle for
the soul of Nigeria. Information, Communication & Society 24:3,
422-437. [Crossref]
179. Robert Luzsa, Susanne Mayr. 2021. False consensus in the echo
chamber: Exposure to favorablybiased social media news feeds leads
to increased perception of public support for own opinions.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace
15:1. . [Crossref]
180. Lateef Adeshina Ayinde, Ejiro Daniel Keriafe, Fatima Jibril
Abduldayan. 2021. Information needs andsources of electorates in
Nigeria. Library Management 42:1/2, 22-45. [Crossref]
181. Ahmed Al-Rawi. 2021. How did Russian and Iranian trolls’
disinformation toward Canadian issuesdiverge and converge?.
Digital War 31. . [Crossref]
182. Mike Cowburn, Michael T. Oswald. 2021. Legislator Adoption of
the Fake News Label: IdeologicalDifferences in Republican
Representative Use on Twitter. The Forum 18:3, 389-413. [Crossref]
183. Lucas Graves. Lessons from an extraordinary year 188-197.
[Crossref]
184. Jeremy Levy, Robin Bayes, Toby Bolsen, James N. Druckman.
Science and the politics ofmisinformation 231-241. [Crossref]
185. Sophie Lecheler, Jana Laura Egelhofer. Consumption of
misinformation and disinformation 323-331. [Crossref]
186. Daniel Funke. Global responses to misinformation and populism
449-458. [Crossref]
187. Emmanuel M. Pothos, Stephan Lewandowsky, Irina Basieva, Albert
Barque-Duran, Katy Tapper,Andrei Khrennikov. 2021. Information
overload for (bounded) rational agents. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 288:1944, 20202957. [Crossref]
188. Tal Samuel-Azran, Moran Yarchi, Tsahi (Zack) Hayat. 2021. Less
critical and less informed:
undecided voters’ media (dis)engagement during Israel’s April 2019
elections. Information, Communication & Society 25, 1-17.
[Crossref]
189. Edson C. Tandoc Jr., Ryan J. Thomas, Lauren Bishop. 2021. What
Is (Fake) News? Analyzing NewsValues (and More) in Fake Stories.
Media and Communication 9:1, 110-119. [Crossref]
190. Miriam J. Metzger, Andrew J. Flanagin, Paul Mena, Shan Jiang,
Christo Wilson. 2021. From Dark toLight: The Many Shades of Sharing
Misinformation Online. Media and Communication 9:1, 134-143.
[Crossref]
191. Cameron Martel, Mohsen Mosleh, David G. Rand. 2021. You’re
Definitely Wrong, Maybe: Correction Style Has Minimal Effect on
Corrections of Misinformation Online. Media and Communication 9:1,
120-133. [Crossref]
192. Kathrin Eismann. 2021. Diffusion and persistence of false rumors
in social media networks:
implications of searchability on rumor self-correction on Twitter.
Journal of Business Economics 31. . [Crossref]
193. Terry Flew, Rosalie Gillett, Fiona Martin, Lucy Sunman. 2021.
Return of the regulatory state: Astakeholder analysis of
Australia’s Digital Platforms Inquiry and online news policy. The
Information Society 11, 1-25. [Crossref]
194. Ludovic Rheault, Andreea Musulan. 2021. Efficient detection of
online communities and social botactivity during electoral
campaigns. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 57, 1-14.
[Crossref]
195. Hikmat Ullah Khan, Shumaila Nasir, Kishwar Nasim, Danial
Shabbir, Ahsan Mahmood. 2021. Twitter trends: A ranking algorithm
analysis on real time data. Expert Systems with Applications 164,
113990. [Crossref]
196. S. Mo Jones-Jang, Tara Mortensen, Jingjing Liu. 2021. Does Media
Literacy Help Identification ofFake News? Information Literacy
Helps, but Other Literacies Don’t. American Behavioral Scientist
65:2, 371-388. [Crossref]
197. Louisa Ha, Loarre Andreu Perez, Rik Ray. 2021. Mapping Recent
Development in Scholarshipon Fake News and Misinformation, 2008
to 2017: Disciplinary Contribution, Topics, and Impact. American
Behavioral Scientist 65:2, 290-315. [Crossref]
198. Maria D. Molina, S. Shyam Sundar, Thai Le, Dongwon Lee. 2021.
“Fake News” Is Not Simply FalseInformation: A Concept Explication
and Taxonomy of Online Content. American Behavioral Scientist
65:2, 180-212. [Crossref]
199. Brian E. Weeks, Homero Gil de Zúñiga. 2021. What’s Next? Six
Observations for the Future ofPolitical Misinformation Research.
American Behavioral Scientist 65:2, 277-289. [Crossref]
200. Henrik Skaug Sætra. 2021. AI in Context and the Sustainable
Development Goals: Factoring in theUnsustainability of the
Sociotechnical System. Sustainability 13:4, 1738. [Crossref]
201. Kefei Tu, Chen Chen, Chunyan Hou, Jing Yuan, Jundong Li, Xiaojie
Yuan. 2021. Rumor2vec: ARumor Detection Framework with Joint Text
and Propagation Structure Representation Learning. Information
Sciences 31. . [Crossref]
202. Sutirtha Chatterjee, Suranjan Chakraborty, H. Kevin Fulk,
Suprateek Sarker. 2021. Building acompassionate workplace using
information technology: Considerations for information systems
research. International Journal of Information Management 56,
102261. [Crossref]
203. Puneet Garg, Shailendra Narayan Singh. Analysis of Ensemble
Learning Models for Identifying Spamover Social Networks using
Recursive Feature Elimination 713-718. [Crossref]
204. Yafei Zhang, Lin Wang, Jonathan J. H. Zhu, Xiaofan Wang. 2021.
Conspiracy vs science: A largescale analysis of online discussion
cascades. World Wide Web 31. . [Crossref]
205. Martin J. Riedl, Kelsey N. Whipple, Ryan Wallace. 2021.
Antecedents of support for social mediacontent moderation and
platform regulation: the role of presumed effects on self and
others. Information, Communication & Society 69, 1-18. [Crossref]
206. Atle Haugsgjerd, Stine Hesstvedt, Rune Karlsen. 2021. Increased
Media Choice and PoliticalKnowledge Gaps: A Comparative
Longitudinal Study of 18 Established Democracies 1995-2015.
Political Communication 1-20. [Crossref]
207. Eileen Culloty, Jane Suiter. Audiences 49-65. [Crossref]
208. Caitlin Hamilton, Jordan McSwiney, Nyibeny Gum Naam, Laura J.
Shepherd. 2021. The Social Lifeof the Women, Peace and Security
Agenda: A Digital Social Network Analysis. Global Society 3, 1-
24. [Crossref]
209. Stefan Gössling. 2021. Tourism, technology and ICT: a critical
review of affordances and concessions.Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 361, 1-18. [Crossref]
210. Tricia Campbell Bailey, Ingrid Hsieh-Yee. 2021. Combating the
Sharing of False Information:
History, Framework, and Literacy Strategies. Internet Reference
Services Quarterly 55, 1-22. [Crossref]
211. Ekraam Sabir, Ayush Jaiswal, Wael AbdAlmageed, Prem Natarajan.
MEG: Multi-Evidence GNN forMultimodal Semantic Forensics 9804-
9811. [Crossref]
212. Keith Conti, Shania Desai, Stanislaw P. Stawicki, Thomas J.
Papadimos. The Evolving Interplaybetween Social Media and
International Health Security: A Point of View . [Crossref]
213. Syeda Zainab Akbar, Anmol Panda, Divyanshu Kukreti, Azhagu
Meena, Joyojeet Pal. 2021. Misinformation as a Window into
Prejudice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
4:CSCW3, 1-28. [Crossref]
214. Peter Reinhard Hansen, Matthias Schmidtblaicher. 2021. A Dynamic
Model of Vaccine Compliance: How Fake News Undermined the Danish
HPV Vaccine Program. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics
39:1, 259-271. [Crossref]
215. Václav Štětka, Jaromír Mazák, Lenka Vochocová. 2021. “Nobody
Tells us what to Write about”: TheDisinformation Media Ecosystem
and its Consumers in the Czech Republic. Javnost - The Public 28:1,
90-109. [Crossref]
216. Loukas Balafoutas, Alexander Libman, Vasileios Selamis, Björn
Vollan. 2021. Exposure to conspiracytheories in the lab. Economic
and Political Studies 9:1, 90-112. [Crossref]
217. Simge Andı, Jesper Akesson. 2021. Nudging Away False News:
Evidence from a Social NormsExperiment. Digital Journalism 9:1,
106-125. [Crossref]
218. Deependra Bhushan, Chetan Agrawal, Himanshu Yadav. Fake News
Detection: Tools, Techniques,and Methodologies 347-357. [Crossref]
219. Pawan Kumar Verma, Prateek Agrawal. Study and Detection of Fake
News: P2C2-Based MachineLearning Approach 261-278. [Crossref]
220. Mohammad Ahsan, T. P. Sharma. Influence of Internal and External
Sources on InformationDiffusion at Twitter 430-436. [Crossref]
221. Hyung Min Kim, Soheil Sabri, Anthony Kent. Smart cities as a
platform for technological and socialinnovation in productivity,
sustainability, and livability: A conceptual framework 9-28.
[Crossref]
222. Fernando Filgueiras, Virgílio Almeida. Digital Technologies for
Governance 43-73. [Crossref]
223. Esra Bozkanat. Detecting Fake News on Social Media 49-67.
[Crossref]
224. Alicia Fjällhed. Managing Disinformation Through Public
Diplomacy 227-253. [Crossref] 225. Edson C. Tandoc. Tools of
Disinformation: How Fake News Gets to Deceive 35-46. [Crossref]
226. Robert Paluch, Łukasz Gajewski, Krzysztof Suchecki, Bolesław
Szymański, Janusz A. Hołyst.Enhancing Maximum Likelihood
Estimation of Infection Source Localization 21-41. [Crossref]
227. Shaun Ruysenaar. Thinking Critically About the Fourth Industrial
Revolution as a Wicked Problem1-26. [Crossref]
228. Ramanpreet Kaur, Tomaž Klobučar, Dušan Gabrijelčič. Privacy in
Online Social Networks 567-598. [Crossref]
229. Joshua Ojo Nehinbe. Statistical Methods for Conducting the
Ontology and Classifications of FakeNews on Social Media 632-651.
[Crossref]
230. Uma Maheswari Sadasivam, Nitin Ganesan. Detecting Fake News
Using Deep Learning and NLP117-133. [Crossref]
231. Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman, Prithula Prosun Puja. Storytelling and the
Rhetoric of Rumor in Social Media40-62. [Crossref]
232. Stephen Jeffares. The Management of Social Media in Frontline
Public Service 151-182. [Crossref]
233. Mark Chong, Murphy Choy. An Empirically Supported Taxonomy of
Misinformation 1-24. [Crossref]
234. Thomas Dale. The Fundamental Roles of Technology in the Spread
of Fake News 67-82. [Crossref]
235. Rosanna E. Guadagno, Karen Guttieri. Fake News and Information
Warfare 218-242. [Crossref]
236. Norbert Merkovity. Political Campaign Communication in the
Information Age 331-345. [Crossref]
237. Umaru A. Pate, Adamkolo Mohammed Ibrahim. Fake News, Hate Speech
and Nigeria's Struggle forDemocratic Consolidation 387-410.
[Crossref]
238. Antonio Badia. An Overview (and Criticism) of Methods to Detect
Fake Content Online 412-421. [Crossref]
239. Mehmet Fatih Çömlekçi. Combating Fake News Online 466-482.
[Crossref]
240. Stephanie Jean Tsang. News Credibility and Media Literacy in the
Digital Age 544-564. [Crossref]
241. Anjum Nazir, Rizwan Ahmed Khan. Network Intrusion Detection:
Taxonomy and Machine LearningApplications 3-28. [Crossref]
242. Vivek K. Singh, Isha Ghosh, Darshan Sonagara. 2021. Detecting
fake news stories via multimodalanalysis. Journal of the
 Association for Information Science and Technology 72:1, 3-17.
[Crossref]
243. Cecilia Toccaceli, Letizia Milli, Giulio Rossetti. Opinion
Dynamic Modeling of Fake News Perception370-381. [Crossref]
244. Ardian Maulana, Hokky Situngkir. Media Partisanship During
Election: Indonesian Cases 651-659. [Crossref]
245. Artem Zakharchenko, Tomáš Peráček, Solomiia Fedushko, Yuriy
Syerov, Olha Trach. 2021. WhenFact-Checking and ‘BBC Standards’
Are Helpless: ‘Fake Newsworthy Event’ Manipulation and the
Reaction of the ‘High-Quality Media’ on It. Sustainability 13:2,
573. [Crossref]
246. Tinggui Chen, Yulong Wang, Jianjun Yang, Guodong Cong. 2021.
Modeling MultidimensionalPublic Opinion Polarization Process under
the Context of Derived Topics. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 18:2, 472. [Crossref]
247. Michael Power. 2021. Modelling the Micro-Foundations of the
Audit Society: Organizations and theLogic of the Audit Trail.
Academy of Management Review 46:1, 6-32. [Crossref]
248. T V Rampisela, H T Andarlia, Z Rustam. 2021. Classification of
the likelihood of IndonesianFacebook users in spreading hoaxes
using Support Vector Machine (SVM). Journal of Physics: Conference
Series 1725, 012019. [Crossref]
249. Dixie D. Massey. Texts and Tasks 1643-1664. [Crossref]
250. Depeng Zhang, Hongchen Wu, Feng Yang. 2021. FSCR: A Deep Social
Recommendation Model forMisleading Information. Information 12:1,
37. [Crossref]
251. Giandomenico Di Domenico, Jason Sit, Alessio Ishizaka, Daniel
Nunan. 2021. Fake news, social mediaand marketing: A systematic
review. Journal of Business Research 124, 329-341. [Crossref]
252. Paul Butcher. 2021. COVID-19 as a turning point in the fight
against disinformation. Nature Electronics 4:1, 7-9. [Crossref]
253. Germán Bula. A Philosophy of Sidewalks: Reclaiming Promiscuous
Public Spaces 347-364. [Crossref]
254. Birgit Stark, Melanie Magin, Stefan Geiß. Meinungsbildung in und
mit sozialen Medien 1-19. [Crossref]
255. Chris Edmond, Yang K. Lu. 2021. Creating confusion. Journal of
Economic Theory 191, 105145. [Crossref]
256. Senuri Wijenayake, Danula Hettiachchi, Simo Hosio, Vassilis
Kostakos, Jorge Goncalves. 2021. Effectof Conformity on Perceived
Trustworthiness of News in Social Media. IEEE Internet Computing
25:1, 12-19. [Crossref]
257. Diaa Salama Abdelminaam, Fatma Helmy Ismail, Mohamed Taha, Ahmed
Taha, Essam H. Houssein,Ayman Nabil. 2021. CoAID-DEEP: An
Optimized Intelligent Framework for Automated Detecting COVID-19
Misleading Information on Twitter. IEEE Access 9, 27840-27867.
[Crossref]
258. Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Bahaaeddin Alareeni, Marta I. Karpa,
Lokendra Singh Umrao, Milind Gupta.Detection of Fake News Problems
and Their Evaluation Through Artificial Intelligence 94-101.
[Crossref]
259. David L. Dickinson, Naomi Kakoschke. 2021. Seeking confirmation?
Biased information search anddeliberation in the food domain. Food
Quality and Preference 114, 104189. [Crossref]
260. Андрей Костырев. 2021. Постполитика в сетях постправды. Полис.
Политические исследования 64-75. [Crossref]
261. Atin Basuchoudhary, Laura Razzolini. 2021. Social Bubbles, Fake
News, and Profits: Can Real NewsSurvive?. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
262. Jochen Wirtz, Nicole Hartley, Werner H. Kunz, James Tarbit,
Jamie Ford. 2021. Corporate DigitalResponsibility at the Dawn of
the Digital Service Revolution. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
263. Lisa Schwaiger. Die Lüge im digitalen Zeitalter – Simmel und die
„geheime Gesellschaft“ 323-337. [Crossref]
264. Alexander Haas, Hans-Bernd Brosius. Wie kann die Kommunikations-
und Medienwissenschaft aufden Medienwandel reagieren? 493-506.
[Crossref]
265. Clark A. Chinn, Sarit Barzilai, Ravit Golan Duncan. 2021.
Education for a “Post-Truth” World: NewDirections for Research and
Practice. Educational Researcher 50:1, 51-60. [Crossref]
266. Hema Karande, Rahee Walambe, Victor Benjamin, Ketan Kotecha, TS
Raghu. 2021. Stance detectionwith BERT embeddings for credibility
analysis of information on social media. PeerJ Computer Science
7, e467. [Crossref]
267. Alessio Sardo. Freedom of Expression, Sliding-Scales, and Fake
News 265-288. [Crossref]
268. Yuhan Wen. 2021. How to use new media technology to avoid media
ethics anomie. Procedia Computer Science 183, 833-836. [Crossref]
269. Shekh Moinuddin. Mapping Digital Political Economy in India 1-
34. [Crossref]
270. Shekh Moinuddin. Political Economy of Spatial Turn in Digital
Landscapes 165-171. [Crossref]
271. Miloš Gregor, Petra Mlejnková. Explaining the Challenge: From
Persuasion to Relativisation 3-41. [Crossref]
272. Roberto Di Pietro, Simone Raponi, Maurantonio Caprolu, Stefano
Cresci. Information Disorder 7-64. [Crossref]
273. Kristina Machova, Ivan Srba, Martin Sarnovský, Ján Paralič,
Viera Maslej Kresnakova, AndreaHrckova, Michal Kompan, Marian
Simko, Radoslav Blaho, Daniela Chuda, Maria Bielikova, Pavol
Navrat. Addressing False Information and Abusive Language in
Digital Space Using Intelligent Approaches 3-32. [Crossref]
274. Kuan-Wei Chen. Dealing with Disinformation from the Perspective
of Militant Democracy: A CaseStudy of Taiwan’s Struggle to Regulate
Disinformation 125-147. [Crossref]
275. Kathrin Otrel-Cass, Michael Fasching. Postdigital Truths:
Educational Reflections on Fake News andDigital Identities 89-108.
[Crossref]
276. M. Rosie Jahng. 2021. Is Fake News the New Social Media Crisis?
Examining the Public Evaluationof Crisis Management for Corporate
Organizations Targeted in Fake News. International Journal of
Strategic Communication 15:1, 18-36. [Crossref]
277. Samuel Kai Wah Chu, Runbin Xie, Yanshu Wang. 2021. Cross-
Language Fake News Detection. Data and Information Management 5:1,
100-109. [Crossref]
278. Emanuel Adler, Alena Drieschova. 2021. The Epistemological
Challenge of Truth Subversion to the
Liberal International Order. International Organization 75:2, 359-
386. [Crossref]
279. Bianca Fox, Valentina Marinescu. Social Media and Electoral
Processes 1-17. [Crossref]
280. Heather C. Webb, Manal Emam. Social Media and Fake News Impact
on Social Movements 40-56. [Crossref]
281. Alexandre Magalhães de Mattos, Ingrid Zuvanov Kahl Costa,
Mercedes Neto, Ricardo de MattosRusso Rafael, Eloá Carneiro
Carvalho, Fernando Porto. 2021. Fake News em tempos de COVID-19 e
seu tratamento jurídico no ordenamento brasileiro. Escola Anna
Nery 25:spe. . [Crossref]
282. Rubén Poblete-Cazenave. 2021. Reputation shocks and Strategic
Reaction in Electoral Campaigns.SSRN Electronic Journal 31. .
[Crossref]
283. Alice Gomes Frugoli, Raquel de Souza Prado, Tercia Moreira
Ribeiro da Silva, Fernanda PenidoMatozinhos, Carla Andrea Trapé,
Sheila Aparecida Ferreira Lachtim. 2021. Fake news sobre vacinas:
uma análise sob o modelo dos 3Cs da Organização Mundial da Saúde.
Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 55. . [Crossref]
284. Maarten Hillebrandt. 2021. The Communicative Model of
Disinformation: A Literature Note. SSRN Electronic Journal 15. .
[Crossref]
285. Zhong Wu, Chuan Zhou. The Application Status and Future
Prospects of Computer-Based SocialMedia in the Sports Industry
643-650. [Crossref]
286. Matheus Marinho, Carmelo J. A. Bastos-Filho, Anthony Lins.
Evaluating Preprocessing Techniquesin Identifying Fake News 498-
507. [Crossref]
287. Claudine Madras Gartenberg. 2021. Purpose-driven companies and
sustainability. SSRN Electronic Journal 62. . [Crossref]
288. Isha Y. Agarwal, Dipti P. Rana. Fake News and Imbalanced Data
Perspective 195-210. [Crossref]
289. Walid Miloud Dahmane, Samir Ouchani, Hafida Bouarfa.
Guaranteeing Information IntegrityThrough Blockchains for Smart
Cities 199-212. [Crossref]
290. Christopher J. Hand, Graham G. Scott, Zara P. Brodie, Xilei Ye,
Sara C. Sereno. 2021. Tweet valence,volume of abuse, and observers’
dark tetrad personality factors influence victim-blaming and the
perceived severity of twitter cyberabuse. Computers in Human
Behavior Reports 3, 100056. [Crossref]
291. Arianna D’Ulizia, Maria Chiara Caschera, Fernando Ferri,
Patrizia Grifoni. 2021. Fake news detection:
a survey of evaluation datasets. PeerJ Computer Science 7, e518.
[Crossref]
292. Manuel S. Hubacher. Sie sind Fake News! 153-173. [Crossref]
293. Ninu Poulose. Fake News in Health and Medicine 193-204.
[Crossref]
294. Girish Keshav Palshikar. Fake News and Social Processes: A Short
Review 245-256. [Crossref]
295. Adam D. Moore. 2021. Free Speech, Privacy, and Autonomy. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref] 296. Elena Vasilevna Andreeva,
Mariya Petrovna Arkhipova. 2021. Linguistic manipulation as a
method of influencing public opinion in the time of COVID-19
pandemic. Филология: научные исследования :6, 52-61. [Crossref]
297. Ramanpreet Kaur, Tomaž Klobučar, Dušan Gabrijelčič. Privacy in
Online Social Networks 2078-2109. [Crossref]
298. Hui Zhao, Xin Liu, Yiting Wang. 2021. Tripartite Evolutionary
Game Analysis for Rumor Spreadingon Weibo Based on MA-PT. IEEE
Access 9, 90043-90060. [Crossref]
299. V. Kakulapati, S. Mahender Reddy. Multimodal Detection of COVID-
19 Fake News and PublicBehavior Analysis—Machine Learning
Prospective 225-241. [Crossref]
300. Sebastián Ruíz, Eliana Providel, Marcelo Mendoza. Fake News
Detection via English-to-SpanishTranslation: Is It Really Useful?
136-148. [Crossref]
301. Victoria Vziatysheva, Yadviga Sinyavskaya, Alexander Porshnev,
Maxim Terpilovskii, Sergey Koltcov,Kirill Bryanov. Testing Users’
Ability to Recognize Fake News in Three Countries. An Experimental
Perspective 370-390. [Crossref]
302. Alexander Porshnev, Alex Miltsov, Tetyana Lokot, Olessia
Koltsova. Effects of Conspiracy ThinkingStyle, Framing and
Political Interest on Accuracy of Fake News Recognition by Social
Media Users: Evidence from Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine 341-
357. [Crossref]
303. Zaid Amin, Nazlena Mohamad Ali, Alan F. Smeaton. Attention-Based
Design and Selective ExposureAmid COVID-19 Misinformation Sharing
501-510. [Crossref]
304. Mahama Tawat. 2021. Fake News and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A
Study of Practices andSociopolitical Implications in Cameroon.
SSRN Electronic Journal 31. . [Crossref]
305. Mohamed Mostagir, James Siderius. 2021. Learning in a Post-Truth
World. SSRN Electronic Journal 9. . [Crossref]
306. Sidney Coupet, Guerda Nicolas, Ceewin N. Louder, Marisol Meyer.
2021. When public healthmessages become stressful: Managing
chronic disease during COVID-19. Social Sciences & Humanities
Open 4:1, 100150. [Crossref]
307. Adem BÖLÜKBAŞI, Mariam MOHAMMED. 2020. Siber Uzay Çağında
Demokrasi ve Yalan
Haberler. Sosyal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi (SKAD) 6:13,
1-38. [Crossref]
308. Marko Selakovic, Anna Tarabasz, Monica Gallant. 2020. Typology
of Business-Related Fake NewsOnline: A Literature Review. GATR
Journal of Management and Marketing Review 5:4, 234-243.
[Crossref]
309. Neri Marsili. 2020. Lying, speech acts, and commitment. Synthese
94. . [Crossref]
310. Amalia Juneström. 2020. An emerging genre of contemporary fact-
checking. Journal of Documentation ahead-of-print:ahead-of-print.
. [Crossref]
311. Sergei Guriev, Nikita Melnikov, Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. 2020. 3G
Internet and Confidence inGovernment*. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 2017. . [Crossref]
312. Okuhle Ngada, Bertram Haskins. Fake News Detection Using
Content-Based Features and MachineLearning 1-6. [Crossref]
313. Tâmela Grafolin*, Paulo Serra**, Valeriano Piñeiro-Naval***,
Fábio Giacomelli****. 2020. Literaciaem saúde e literacia
mediática: os elementos mais considerados nas informações sobre
vacinação. Comunicação pública :Vol.15 nº 29. . [Crossref]
314. Andrzej Kawiak, Grzegorz M. Wojcik, Piotr Schneider, Lukasz
Kwasniewicz, Adam Wierzbicki. 2020. Whom to Believe?
Understanding and Modeling Brain Activity in Source Credibility
Evaluation. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 14. . [Crossref]
315. Chin-Chia Hsu, Amir Ajorlou, Muhamet Yildiz, Ali Jadbabaie.
Information Disclosure and NetworkFormation in News Subscription
Services 5586-5591. [Crossref]
316. Elaine Javorski, Janine Bargas. 2020. A informação sobre a
Covid-19 nos desertos de notícias: arelevância do jornalismo
interior do Pará. Liinc em Revista 16:2, e5339. [Crossref]
317. Anis Najar, Emmanuelle Bonnet, Bahador Bahrami, Stefano
Palminteri. 2020. The actions of othersact as a pseudo-reward to
 drive imitation in the context of social reinforcement learning.
PLOS Biology 18:12, e3001028. [Crossref]
318. Kento Yoshikawa, Takumi Awa, Risa Kusano, Hiroyuki Sato,
Masatsugu Ichino, Hiroshi Yoshiura. AFake News Dissemination
Model Based on Updating Reliability and Doubt among Individuals
1-8. [Crossref]
319. Razieh Nokhbeh Zaeem, Chengjing Li, K. Suzanne Barber. On
Sentiment of Online Fake News760-767. [Crossref]
320. Fernando C. Erd, Andre L. Vignatti, Murilo V. G. da Silva.
Blocking the Spread of Misinformationin a Network under Distinct
Cost Models 232-236. [Crossref]
321. Srihaasa Pidikiti, Jason Shuo Zhang, Richard Han, Tamara Lehman,
Qin Lv, Shivakant Mishra.Understanding How Readers Determine the
Legitimacy of Online News Articles in the Era of Fake News 768-
775. [Crossref]
322. Grzegorz Urbanek. 2020. Fake News Related to the Coronavirus.
Case Study. Security Dimensions 34:34, 61-75. [Crossref]
323. Javier Serrano-Puche, Carmen Beatriz Fernández, Jordi Rodríguez
Virgili. Disinformation and newsconsumption in a polarized
society 161-178. [Crossref]
324. Jesús San Martín, Fátima Drubi, Daniel Rodríguez Pérez. 2020.
Uncritical polarized groups: Theimpact of spreading fake news as
fact in social networks. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
178, 192-206. [Crossref]
325. Stefano Guarino, Noemi Trino, Alessandro Celestini, Alessandro
Chessa, Gianni Riotta. 2020. Characterizing networks of
propaganda on twitter: a case study. Applied Network Science 5:1.
. [Crossref]
326. Cameron Martel, Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand. 2020. Reliance
on emotion promotes belief infake news. Cognitive Research:
Principles and Implications 5:1. . [Crossref]
327. Kris Hartley, Minh Khuong Vu. 2020. Fighting fake news in the
COVID-19 era: policy insights froman equilibrium model. Policy
Sciences 53:4, 735-758. [Crossref]
328. Janet Z. Yang, Jun Zhuang. 2020. Information Seeking and
Information Sharing Related to HurricaneHarvey. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 97:4, 1054-1079. [Crossref]
329. Katherine Clayton, Spencer Blair, Jonathan A. Busam, Samuel
Forstner, John Glance, Guy Green,Anna Kawata, Akhila Kovvuri,
Jonathan Martin, Evan Morgan, Morgan Sandhu, Rachel Sang, Rachel
Scholz-Bright, Austin T. Welch, Andrew G. Wolff, Amanda Zhou,
Brendan Nyhan. 2020. Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the
Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing
Belief in False Stories on Social Media. Political Behavior 42:4,
1073-1095. [Crossref]
330. Suvodeep Mazumdar, Dhavalkumar Thakker. 2020. Citizen Science
on Twitter: Using Data Analyticsto Understand Conversations and
Networks. Future Internet 12:12, 210. [Crossref]
331. Francesco Pierri, Carlo Piccardi, Stefano Ceri. 2020. A multi-
layer approach to disinformationdetection in US and Italian news
spreading on Twitter. EPJ Data Science 9:1. . [Crossref]
332. David L. Dickinson. 2020. Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation
Bias in Politics. Games 11:4, 57. [Crossref]
333. Cornelia Sindermann, Andrew Cooper, Christian Montag. 2020. A
short review on susceptibility tofalling for fake political news.
Current Opinion in Psychology 36, 44-48. [Crossref]
334. Xin Wang, Antonio D. Sirianni, Shaoting Tang, Zhiming Zheng,
Feng Fu. 2020. Public Discourse and
Social Network Echo Chambers Driven by Socio-Cognitive Biases.
Physical Review X 10:4. . [Crossref]
335. Tomer Tuchner, Gail Gilboa-Freedman. 2020. Bullshit in a network
structure: the two-sidedinfluence of self-generated signals.
Social Network Analysis and Mining 10:1. . [Crossref]
336. Hanif Emamgholizadeh, Milad Nourizade, Mir Saman Tajbakhsh,
Mahdieh Hashminezhad, FarzanehNasr Esfahani. 2020. A framework
for quantifying controversy of social network debates using
attributed networks: biased random walk (BRW). Social Network
Analysis and Mining 10:1. . [Crossref]
337. Andreas Kollias, Fani Kountouri. 2020. Tweets That Matter:
Reconsidering Journalistic Sourcingand Framing Processes in the
Context of the #Grexit Debate. Journalism and Media 1:1, 122-144.
[Crossref]
338. Ruben Tolosana, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Julian Fierrez, Aythami
Morales, Javier Ortega-Garcia. 2020. Deepfakes and beyond: A
Survey of face manipulation and fake detection. Information Fusion
64, 131-148. [Crossref]
339. Roger D. Magarey, Christina M. Trexler. 2020. Information: a
missing component in understandingand mitigating social
epidemics. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7:1. .
[Crossref]
340. Marcellus Smith, Alexicia Richardson, Brandon Brown, Gerry
Dozier, Michael King, Joshua Morris.A Study of the Impact of
Evolutionary-Based Feature Selection for Fake News Detection
1859-1865. [Crossref]
341. Francesco Pierri, Carlo Piccardi, Stefano Ceri. 2020. Topology
comparison of Twitter diffusionnetworks effectively reveals
misleading information. Scientific Reports 10:1. . [Crossref]
342. Joseph H. Tien, Marisa C. Eisenberg, Sarah T. Cherng, Mason A.
Porter. 2020. Online reactions tothe 2017 ‘Unite the right’ rally
in Charlottesville: measuring polarization in Twitter networks
using media followership. Applied Network Science 5:1. .
[Crossref]
343. Andrew P. Weiss, Ahmed Alwan, Eric P. Garcia, Julieta Garcia.
2020. Surveying fake news: Assessinguniversity faculty’s
fragmented definition of fake news and its impact on teaching
critical thinking.
International Journal for Educational Integrity 16:1. .
[Crossref]
344. Caitlin Elsaesser, Desmond Upton Patton, Emily Weinstein,
Jacqueline Santiago, Ayesha Clarke, RobEschmann. 2020. Small
becomes big, fast: Adolescent perceptions of how social media
features escalate online conflict to offline violence. Children
and Youth Services Review 105898. [Crossref]
345. Manon Berriche, Sacha Altay. 2020. Internet users engage more
with phatic posts than with healthmisinformation on Facebook.
Palgrave Communications 6:1. . [Crossref]
346. Mitchell Church, Ravi Thambusamy, Hamid Nemati. 2020. User
misrepresentation in onlinesocial networks: how competition and
altruism impact online disclosure behaviours. Behaviour &
Information Technology 39:12, 1320-1340. [Crossref]
347. João Victor de Souza, Jorão Gomes, Fernando Marques de Souza
Filho, Alessandreia Marta de OliveiraJulio, Jairo Francisco de
Souza. 2020. A systematic mapping on automatic classification of
fake news in social media. Social Network Analysis and Mining
10:1. . [Crossref]
348. Matthew Spradling, Jeremy Straub. Evaluation of Elements of a
Prospective System to Alert Usersto Intentionally Deceptive
Content 224-229. [Crossref]
349. Thoudam Doren Singh, Divyansha Divyansha, Apoorva Vikram Singh,
Anubhav Sachan, AbdullahFaiz Ur Rahman Khilji. Debunking Fake
News by Leveraging Speaker Credibility and BERT Based Model 960-
968. [Crossref]
350. Maik Paixao, Rinaldo Lima, Bernard Espinasse. Fake News
Classification and Topic Modeling inBrazilian Portuguese 427-432.
[Crossref]
351. Beth St. Jean, Paul T. Jaeger, Gagan Jindal, Yuting Liao.
Introduction: Libraries and Librarians asAgents of Health
Information Justice 3-18. [Crossref]
352. Khudejah Ali, Khawaja Zain-ul-abdin. 2020. Post-truth
propaganda: heuristic processing of politicalfake news on
Facebook during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Journal of
Applied Communication Research 4, 1-20. [Crossref]
353. Carola Binder. 2020. Presidential antagonism and central bank
credibility. Economics & Politics 186. . [Crossref]
354. Mayank Kumar Jain, Dinesh Gopalani, Yogesh Kumar Meena, Rajesh
Kumar. Machine Learningbased Fake News Detection using linguistic
features and word vector features 1-6. [Crossref]
355. Cynthia Peacock, Jennifer Hoewe, Elliot Panek, G. Paul Willis.
2020. Hyperpartisan News Use: Relationships with Partisanship and
 Cognitive and Affective Involvement. Mass Communication and
Society 3, 1-23. [Crossref]
356. Dino Villegas. Political Netnography 100-115. [Crossref]
357. Nicoleta Corbu, Alina Bârgăoanu, Raluca Buturoiu, Oana
Ștefăniță. 2020. Does fake news lead to moreengaging effects on
social media? Evidence from Romania. Communications 45:s1, 694-
717. [Crossref]
358. Julien Figeac, Nikos Smyrnaios, Tristan Salord, Guillaume
Cabanac, Ophélie Fraisier, PierreRatinaud, Fanny Seffusatti.
2020. Information-sharing practices on Facebook during the 2017
French presidential campaign: An “unreliable information bubble”
within the extreme right. Communications 45:s1, 648-670.
[Crossref]
359. Paul C. Bauer, Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg. 2020. Believing and
Sharing Information by Fake
Sources: An Experiment. Political Communication 50, 1-25.
[Crossref]
360. Luigi Curini, Eugenio Pizzimenti. Searching for a Unicorn 77-
91. [Crossref]
361. Flavio Carvalho, Helder Yukio Okuno, Lais Baroni, Gustavo
Guedes. A Brazilian Portuguese MoralFoundations Dictionary for
Fake News classification 1-5. [Crossref]
362. Sofia Rüdiger, Daria Dayter. Introduction. The expanding
landscape of corpus-based studies of socialmedia language 1-12.
[Crossref]
363. Bartosz Wilczek. 2020. Misinformation and herd behavior in media
markets: A cross-nationalinvestigation of how tabloids’ attention
to misinformation drives broadsheets’ attention to misinformation
in political and business journalism. PLOS ONE 15:11, e0241389.
[Crossref]
364. Julien FIGEAC, Pierre RATINAUD, Nikos SMYRNAIOS, Guillaume
CABANAC, OphélieFRAISIER-VANIER, Tristan SALORD, Fanny
SEFFUSATTI. 2020. Les téléphones mobiles, un outil de
désinformation ? La circulation des informations peu fiables dans
Twitter lors de la campagne présidentielle française de 2017. Tic
& société :Vol. 14, N° 1-2, 375-403. [Crossref]
365. Daria Gritsenko, Matthew Wood. 2020. Algorithmic governance: A
modes of governance approach.Regulation & Governance 16. .
[Crossref]
366. Andrew Duffy, Edson Tandoc, Rich Ling. 2020. Too good to be
true, too good not to share: thesocial utility of fake news.
Information, Communication & Society 23:13, 1965-1979. [Crossref]
367. João Pedro Baptista, Anabela Gradim. 2020. Online disinformation
on Facebook: the spread offake news during the Portuguese 2019
election. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 69, 1-16.
[Crossref]
368. Debra S. Dwyer, Rachel Kreier, Maria X. Sanmartin. 2020.
Technology Use: Too Much of a GoodThing?. Atlantic Economic
Journal 110. . [Crossref]
369. Rebecca Ping Yu. 2020. How Types of Facebook Users Approach News
Verification in the MobileMedia Age: Insights from the Dual-
Information-Processing Model. Mass Communication and Society 65,
1-26. [Crossref]
370. Ebuka Elias Igwebuike, Lily Chimuanya. 2020. Legitimating
falsehood in social media: A discourseanalysis of political fake
news. Discourse & Communication 10, 175048132096165. [Crossref]
371. Evangelos Pournaras. 2020. Proof of witness presence: Blockchain
consensus for augmented democracyin smart cities. Journal of
Parallel and Distributed Computing 145, 160-175. [Crossref]
372. Pedro Henrique Arruda Faustini, Thiago Ferreira Covões. 2020.
Fake news detection in multipleplatforms and languages. Expert
Systems with Applications 158, 113503. [Crossref]
373. David Camacho, Ángel Panizo-LLedot, Gema Bello-Orgaz, Antonio
Gonzalez-Pardo, Erik Cambria.2020. The four dimensions of social
network analysis: An overview of research methods, applications,
and software tools. Information Fusion 63, 88-120. [Crossref]
374. Leonardo Bursztyn, Georgy Egorov, Stefano Fiorin. 2020. From
Extreme to Mainstream: TheErosion of Social Norms. American
Economic Review 110:11, 3522-3548. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
375. Zhaomeng Niu, Lun Hu, David C. Jeong, Jared Brickman, Jerod L.
Stapleton. 2020. An ExperimentalInvestigation into Promoting
Mental Health Service Use on Social Media: Effects of Source and
Comments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 17:21, 7898. [Crossref]
376. Qian Chen, Gautam Srivastava, Reza M. Parizi, Moayad Aloqaily,
Ismaeel Al Ridhawi. 2020. Anincentive-aware blockchain-based
solution for internet of fake media things. Information Processing
& Management 57:6, 102370. [Crossref]
377. Argyro Elisavet Manoli, Comille Bandura. 2020. Perceptions of
the role of traditional and social mediain communicating
corruption. Sport Management Review . [Crossref]
378. Dwayne Winseck. 2020. Vampire squids, ‘the broken internet’ and
platform regulation. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 11:3, 241-
282. [Crossref]
379. Frank Calio, Lena Nadarevic, Jochen Musch. 2020. How explicit
warnings reduce the truth effect: Amultinomial modeling approach.
Acta Psychologica 211, 103185. [Crossref]
380. Hyungjin Gill, Hernando Rojas. 2020. Chatting in a mobile
chamber: effects of instant messenger useon tolerance toward
political misinformation among South Koreans. Asian Journal of
Communication 30:6, 470-493. [Crossref]
381. Anirudh Sridhar, H. Vincent Poor. Sequential Estimation of
Network Cascades 1507-1511. [Crossref]
382. Adrian M. P. Braşoveanu, Răzvan Andonie. 2020. Integrating
Machine Learning Techniques inSemantic Fake News Detection.
Neural Processing Letters 8. . [Crossref]
383. Jane Stephens (Fynes-Clinton), Rosanna Natoli, Michele
Gilchrist. 2020. Too close forcomfort: journalists’ ethical
challenges in regional Australia. Media International Australia
37, 1329878X2096746. [Crossref]
384. Richard Rogers, Sal Hagen. Epilogue . [Crossref]
385. Hamid Keshavarz. 2020. Evaluating Credibility of Social Media
Information: Current Challenges,Research Directions and Practical
Criteria. Information Discovery and Delivery ahead-of-
print:aheadof-print. . [Crossref]
386. Sulaiman A. Osho. Fake News as Aberration in Journalism
Practice: Examining Truth and Facts asBasis of Fourth Estate of
the Realm . [Crossref]
387. Chen Luo, Jia Shang, Yuchun Zhu. 2020. Internet as a context:
Exploring its impacts on scientificoptimism in China. Information
Development 79, 026666692096563. [Crossref]
388. Lesley S. J. Farmer. Introduction 1-7. [Crossref]
389. Simge Andı, S. Erdem Aytaç, Ali Çarkoğlu. 2020. Internet and
social media use and politicalknowledge: Evidence from Turkey.
Mediterranean Politics 25:5, 579-599. [Crossref]
390. David S. Morris, Jonathan S. Morris, Peter L. Francia. 2020. A
fake news inoculation? Fact checkers,partisan identification, and
the power of misinformation. Politics, Groups, and Identities
8:5, 986-1005. [Crossref]
391. Iftikhar Ahmad, Muhammad Yousaf, Suhail Yousaf, Muhammad Ovais
Ahmad. 2020. Fake NewsDetection Using Machine Learning Ensemble
Methods. Complexity 2020, 1-11. [Crossref]
392. Emma Ricknell. 2020. Freedom of Expression and Alternatives for
Internet Governance: Prospectsand Pitfalls. Media and
Communication 8:4, 110-120. [Crossref]
393. Jan Kirchner, Christian Reuter. 2020. Countering Fake News.
Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction 4:CSCW2, 1-
27. [Crossref]
394. Piotr Kłodkowski, Anna Siewierska-Chmaj. 2020. O koncepcji
ideologicznej kontrnarracji wobecprzesłania fundamentalizmu
islamskiego. Analiza wybranych przykładów radykalizacji i
deradykalizacji w Europie, Azji Południowej i na Bliskim
Wschodzie. Sprawy Międzynarodowe 72:1, 219-239. [Crossref]
395. Andrei Botez, Joel Hietanen, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2020. Mapping
the absence: a theological critiqueof posthumanist influences in
marketing and consumer research. Journal of Marketing Management
36:15-16, 1391-1416. [Crossref]
396. Jeffrey A. Greene, Dana Z. Copeland, Victor M. Deekens. 2020. A
Model of Technology IncidentalLearning Effects. Educational
Psychology Review 4. . [Crossref]
397. Lennon Y. C. Chang, Souvik Mukherjee, Nicholas Coppel. 2020. We
Are All Victims: Questionable
Content and Collective Victimisation in the Digital Age. Asian
Journal of Criminology 31. . [Crossref]
398. Mary M. Medlin, Donald F. Sacco, Mitch Brown. 2020. Political
Orientation and Belief in Science ina U.S. College Sample.
Psychological Reports 123:5, 1688-1702. [Crossref]
399. Julia Cagé, Nicolas Hervé, Marie-Luce Viaud. 2020. The
Production of Information in an OnlineWorld. The Review of
Economic Studies 87:5, 2126-2164. [Crossref]
400. Cosmin-Octavian Cepoi. 2020. Asymmetric dependence between stock
market returns and newsduring COVID-19 financial turmoil. Finance
Research Letters 36, 101658. [Crossref]
401. Jane Suiter, Richard Fletcher. 2020. Polarization and
partisanship: Key drivers of distrust in mediaold and new?.
European Journal of Communication 35:5, 484-501. [Crossref]
402. Carola Binder. 2020. Coronavirus Fears and Macroeconomic
Expectations. The Review of Economics and Statistics 102:4, 721-
730. [Crossref]
403. Mohammad Abouei Mehrizi, Gianlorenzo D'Angelo. 2020. Multi-
Winner Election Control via SocialInfluence: Hardness and
Algorithms for Restricted Cases. Algorithms 13:10, 251.
[Crossref]
404. João Pedro Baptista, Anabela Gradim. 2020. Understanding Fake
News Consumption: A Review.Social Sciences 9:10, 185. [Crossref]
405. Ygor Bernardes Santos, Ian Baruc Costa e Silva, Eduardo Pontello
Hass Gonçalves. 2020. Concepçõese Percepções de estudantes quanto
a confiabilidade de notícias e Fake News. Revista Científica
Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento 120-140. [Crossref]
406. A.K.M. Najmul Islam, Samuli Laato, Shamim Talukder, Erkki
Sutinen. 2020. Misinformationsharing and social media fatigue
during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load perspective.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 159, 120201.
[Crossref]
407. Daryna Dementieva, Alexander Panchenko. Fake News Detection
using Multilingual Evidence775-776. [Crossref]
408. Jon Roozenbeek, Claudia R. Schneider, Sarah Dryhurst, John Kerr,
Alexandra L. J. Freeman, GabrielRecchia, Anne Marthe van der Bles,
Sander van der Linden. 2020. Susceptibility to misinformation
about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science 7:10,
201199. [Crossref]
409. Charlotte Wagnsson. 2020. What is at stake in the information
sphere? Anxieties about maligninformation influence among
ordinary Swedes. European Security 29:4, 397-415. [Crossref]
410. Brian Collins, Jose Marichal, Richard Neve. 2020. The social
media commons: Public sphere,agonism, and algorithmic obligation.
Journal of Information Technology & Politics 17:4, 409-425.
[Crossref]
411. Xinyi Zhou, Reza Zafarani. 2020. A Survey of Fake News. ACM
Computing Surveys 53:5, 1-40. [Crossref]
412. Justin Pomerance, Nicholas Light, Lawrence E. Williams. 2020.
In these uncertain times: Fake newsamplifies the desires to save
and spend in response to COVID-19. Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research . [Crossref]
413. Àlvar Peris-Blanes. 2020. Infoentretenimiento y espectáculo
televisivo en la comunicación políticavalenciana: las elecciones
autonómicas de 2019 en la televisión pública À Punt. Congreso
Internacional de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la
Comunicación 167-181. [Crossref]
414. Sangwon Lee. 2020. Probing the Mechanisms Through Which Social
Media Erodes PoliticalKnowledge: The Role of the News-Finds-Me
Perception. Mass Communication and Society 12. . [Crossref]
415. Lei Guo. 2020. China’s “Fake News” Problem: Exploring the Spread
of Online Rumors in theGovernment-Controlled News Media. Digital
Journalism 8:8, 992-1010. [Crossref]
416. Craig T. Robertson, Rachel R. Mourão. 2020. Faking Alternative
Journalism? An Analysis of SelfPresentations of “Fake News” Sites.
Digital Journalism 8:8, 1011-1029. [Crossref]
417. Alberto Ardèvol-Abreu, Patricia Delponti, Carmen Rodríguez-
Wangüemert. 2020. Intentional orinadvertent fake news sharing?
Fact-checking warnings and users’ interaction with social media
content. El profesional de la información . [Crossref]
418. Edson C. Tandoc, Matthew Chew, Darren Lim. Fake News 1-6.
[Crossref]
419. Chau Tong, Hyungjin Gill, Jianing Li, Sebastián Valenzuela,
Hernando Rojas. 2020. “Fake News IsAnything They Say!” —
Conceptualization and Weaponization of Fake News among the
American
Public. Mass Communication and Society 23:5, 755-778. [Crossref]
420. Rui Wang, Yuan He, Jing Xu, Hongzhong Zhang. 2020. Fake news or
bad news? Toward an emotiondriven cognitive dissonance model of
misinformation diffusion. Asian Journal of Communication 30:5,
317-342. [Crossref]
421. Federico Vegetti, Moreno Mancosu. 2020. The Impact of Political
Sophistication and MotivatedReasoning on Misinformation.
Political Communication 37:5, 678-695. [Crossref]
422. Federico Albanese, Sebastián Pinto, Viktoriya Semeshenko, Pablo
Balenzuela. 2020. Analyzing massmedia influence using natural
language processing and time series analysis. Journal of Physics:
Complexity 1:2, 025005. [Crossref]
423. Teresa Borges‐Tiago, Flavio Tiago, Osvaldo Silva, José Manuel
Guaita Martínez, Dolores Botella‐Carrubi. 2020. Online users'
attitudes toward fake news: Implications for brand management.
Psychology & Marketing 37:9, 1171-1184. [Crossref]
424. Laura Studen, Victor Tiberius. 2020. Social Media, Quo Vadis?
Prospective Development andImplications. Future Internet 12:9,
146. [Crossref]
425. Sook Lim. 2020. Academic library guides for tackling fake news:
A content analysis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46:5,
102195. [Crossref]
426. Saoirse De Paor, Bahareh Heravi. 2020. Information literacy and
fake news: How the field oflibrarianship can help combat the
epidemic of fake news. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46:5,
102218. [Crossref]
427. Elisa F. Long, M. Keith Chen, Ryne Rohla. 2020. Political storms:
Emergent partisan skepticism ofhurricane risks. Science Advances
6:37, eabb7906. [Crossref]
428. Nicolas M. Anspach, Taylor N. Carlson. 2020. What to Believe?
Social Media Commentary and Beliefin Misinformation. Political
Behavior 42:3, 697-718. [Crossref]
429. Aleksandra Urman. 2020. Context matters: political polarization
on Twitter from a comparativeperspective. Media, Culture & Society
42:6, 857-879. [Crossref]
430. Taeku Lee, Christian Hosam. 2020. Fake News Is Real: The
Significance and Sources of Disbelief inMainstream Media in
Trump’s America. Sociological Forum 35:S1, 996-1018. [Crossref]
431. Juan Sánchez-Villar, Enrique Bigné. 2020. Developing a blog
trust scale via an international Delphipanel. European Research
on Management and Business Economics 26:3, 134-144. [Crossref]
432. Shashank Madhusudhan, Siddhant Mahurkar, Suresh Kumar Nagarajan.
Attributional analysis ofMulti-Modal Fake News Detection Models
(Grand Challenge) 451-455. [Crossref]
433. Kathie M. d'I. Treen, Hywel T. P. Williams, Saffron J. O'Neill.
2020. Online misinformation aboutclimate change. WIREs Climate
Change 11:5. . [Crossref]
434. Raquel Recuero. 2020. #FraudenasUrnas: estratégias discursivas
de desinformação no Twitter naseleições 2018. Revista Brasileira
de Linguística Aplicada 20:3, 383-406. [Crossref]
435. Niels Nagelhus Schia, Lars Gjesvik. 2020. Hacking democracy:
managing influence campaigns anddisinformation in the digital
age. Journal of Cyber Policy 5:3, 413-428. [Crossref]
436. Alina Vereshchaka, Seth Cosimini, Wen Dong. 2020. Analyzing and
distinguishing fake and real newsto mitigate the problem of
disinformation. Computational and Mathematical Organization
Theory 26:3, 350-364. [Crossref]
437. Elena-Alexandra Dumitru. 2020. Testing Children and Adolescents’
Ability to Identify Fake News: A Combined Design of Quasi-
Experiment and Group Discussions. Societies 10:3, 71. [Crossref]
438. . Social Media and Democracy 31, . [Crossref]
439. Andrew M. Guess, Benjamin A. Lyons. Misinformation,
Disinformation, and Online Propaganda10-33. [Crossref]
440. Chloe Wittenberg, Adam J. Berinsky. Misinformation and Its
Correction 163-198. [Crossref]
441. Tim Hwang. Dealing with Disinformation: Evaluating the Case for
Amendment of Section 230 ofthe Communications Decency Act 252-
285. [Crossref]
442. Heather C. Hughes, Israel Waismel-Manor. 2020. The Macedonian
Fake News Industry and the 2016 US Election. PS: Political Science
& Politics 6, 1-5. [Crossref]
443. Laura Rocca, Davide Giacomini, Paola Zola. 2020. Environmental
disclosure and sentiment analysis:
state of the art and opportunities for public-sector
organisations. Meditari Accountancy Research aheadof-print:ahead-
of-print. . [Crossref]
444. Julio C. S. Reis, Philipe Melo, Kiran Garimella, Fabrício
Benevenuto. 2020. Can WhatsAppbenefit from debunked fact-checked
stories to reduce misinformation?. Harvard Kennedy School
Misinformation Review . [Crossref]
445. Ursula Smartt. Social media and fake news 191-206. [Crossref]
446. Min Wang, Mingke Rao, Zhipeng Sun. 2020. Typology, Etiology, and
Fact-Checking: A PathologicalStudy of Top Fake News in China.
Journalism Practice 6, 1-19. [Crossref]
447. Josué Pereira da Silva Santos. 2020. Os(as) bibliotecários(as)
na pós-pandemia: Desafios e perspectivasna era das fake News.
Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento 05-20.
[Crossref]
448. Matthew T. Binford, Bartosz W. Wojdynski, Yen-I Lee, Shuoya Sun,
Andrea Briscoe. 2020. Invisibletransparency: Visual attention to
disclosures and source recognition in Facebook political
advertising. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 1, 1-
14. [Crossref]
449. Jyoti Prakash Singh, Abhinav Kumar, Nripendra P. Rana, Yogesh
K. Dwivedi. 2020. AttentionBased LSTM Network for Rumor Veracity
Estimation of Tweets. Information Systems Frontiers 20. .
[Crossref]
450. Omar Abu Arqoub, Adeola Abdulateef Elega, Bahire Efe Özad,
Hanadi Dwikat, Felix AdedamolaOloyede. 2020. Mapping the
Scholarship of Fake News Research: A Systematic Review. Journalism
Practice 117, 1-31. [Crossref]
451. K. Hazel Kwon, Chun Shao, Seungahn Nah. 2020. Localized social
media and civic life: Motivations,trust, and civic participation
 in local community contexts. Journal of Information Technology &
Politics 10, 1-15. [Crossref]
452. Janelle Benham. 2020. Best Practices for Journalistic Balance:
Gatekeeping, Imbalance and the FakeNews Era. Journalism Practice
14:7, 791-811. [Crossref]
453. Jordan R. Axt, Mark J. Landau, Aaron C. Kay. Fake News
Attributions as a Source of NonspecificStructure 220-234.
[Crossref]
454. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, Maria Petrova, Ruben Enikolopov. 2020.
Political Effects of the Internet andSocial Media. Annual Review
of Economics 12:1, 415-438. [Crossref]
455. Rong Tang, Kyong Eun Oh. 2020. University students’ mobile news
consumption activities andevaluative/affective reactions to
political news during election campaigns: A diary study. Journal
of Information Science 46:4, 476-495. [Crossref]
456. Zhongyuan Ruan, Bin Yu, Xincheng Shu, Qingpeng Zhang, Qi Xuan.
2020. The impact of maliciousnodes on the spreading of false
information. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear
Science 30:8, 083101. [Crossref]
457. Caitlin Drummond, Michael Siegrist, Joseph Árvai. 2020. Limited
effects of exposure to fake newsabout climate change.
Environmental Research Communications 2:8, 081003. [Crossref]
458. Ric Neo. 2020. The securitisation of fake news in Singapore.
International Politics 57:4, 724-740. [Crossref]
459. Trevor Treharne, Andrew Papanikitas. 2020. Defining and
detecting fake news in health and medicinereporting. Journal of
the Royal Society of Medicine 113:8, 302-305. [Crossref]
460. Theófilo Rodrigues, Daniel Ferreira. 2020. ESTRATÉGIAS DIGITAIS
DOS POPULISMOS DEESQUERDA E DE DIREITA: BRASIL E ESPANHA EM
PERSPECTIVA COMPARADA.
Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 59:2, 1070-1086. [Crossref]
461. Austin Lyke. 2020. College Students’ Support for Wealth
Redistribution: Evidence From a NationalSurvey. Journal of
College and Character 21:3, 171-185. [Crossref]
462. Benjamin D. Horne, Dorit Nevo, Sibel Adali, Lydia Manikonda,
Clare Arrington. 2020. Tailoringheuristics and timing AI
interventions for supporting news veracity assessments. Computers
in Human Behavior Reports 2, 100043. [Crossref]
463. Thomas Colley, Francesca Granelli, Jente Althuis. 2020.
DISINFORMATION’S SOCIETALIMPACT: BRITAIN, COVID, AND BEYOND.
Defence Strategic Communications :8, 89-140. [Crossref]
464. Dongmei Fan, Jinling Wang. 2020. An individual-based mean-field
model for fake-news spreadingon PSO-based networks. International
Journal of Modern Physics B 34:19, 2050172. [Crossref]
465. Alessandra Cavalcante Scherma Schurig. 2020. Pós-modernidade e
as duas faces de Janus: o CogitoDigital e o Solipsismo diante da
desconstrução da metafísica. Intuitio 13:1, e34954. [Crossref]
466. Jana Laura Egelhofer, Loes Aaldering, Jakob-Moritz Eberl,
Sebastian Galyga, Sophie Lecheler. 2020. From Novelty to
Normalization? How Journalists Use the Term “Fake News” in their
Reporting. Journalism Studies 21:10, 1323-1343. [Crossref]
467. V. P. Miletskiy, O. A. Nikifоrova. 2020. Evolution of Political
Simulacra in Digital Society (on the Examples of “fake news” and
“post-truth”). Discourse 6:3, 64-77. [Crossref]
468. S Mo Jones-Jang, Dam Hee Kim, Kate Kenski. 2020. Perceptions of
mis- or disinformation exposurepredict political cynicism:
Evidence from a two-wave survey during the 2018 US midterm
elections. New Media & Society 16, 146144482094387. [Crossref]
469. Premal P. Vora. 2020. Clogged information flow and stock-market
sluggishness. PLOS ONE 15:7, e0235978. [Crossref]
470. Liam McLoughlin, Rosalynd Southern. 2020. By any memes
necessary? Small political acts, incidentalexposure and memes
during the 2017 UK general election. The British Journal of
Politics and International Relations 3, 136914812093059.
[Crossref]
471. Isabele Mitozo, Michele Goulart Massuchin, Francisco Paulo Jamil
Marques. Social Media: Complexities and Contradictions 1-7.
[Crossref]
472. Andrew M. Guess, Michael Lerner, Benjamin Lyons, Jacob M.
Montgomery, Brendan Nyhan, JasonReifler, Neelanjan Sircar. 2020.
A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment
between mainstream and false news in the United States and India.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117:27, 15536-
15545. [Crossref]
473. Spencer McKay, Chris Tenove. 2020. Disinformation as a Threat
to Deliberative Democracy. Political Research Quarterly 6,
106591292093814. [Crossref]
474. Leonie Schaewitz, Jan P. Kluck, Lukas Klösters, Nicole C.
Krämer. 2020. When is Disinformation(In)Credible? Experimental
Findings on Message Characteristics and Individual Differences.
Mass Communication and Society 23:4, 484-509. [Crossref]
475. Sarit Barzilai, Clark A. Chinn. 2020. A review of educational
responses to the “post-truth” condition: Four lenses on “post-
truth” problems. Educational Psychologist 55:3, 107-119.
[Crossref]
476. Christian Tatchou Nounkeu. 2020. Facebook and Fake News in the
“Anglophone Crisis” in Cameroon.African Journalism Studies 41:3,
20-35. [Crossref]
477. Vered Elishar-Malka, Yaron Ariel, Gabriel Weimann. 2020.
Rethinking political communication inthe digital sphere. The
Journal of International Communication 26:2, 190-210. [Crossref]
478. Michael O. Ukonu, Joel C. Ugwuoke, Jude C. Ifeanyichukwu. 2020.
Nigerian newspaper coverage andmedia audiences’ opinions on the
major candidates in the 2016 US presidential elections. The
Journal of International Communication 26:2, 281-304. [Crossref]
479. Manuel Goyanes. 2020. Antecedents of Incidental News Exposure:
The Role of Media Preference,Use and Trust. Journalism Practice
14:6, 714-729. [Crossref]
480. Florian Saurwein, Charlotte Spencer-Smith. 2020. Combating
Disinformation on Social Media: Multilevel Governance and
Distributed Accountability in Europe. Digital Journalism 8:6,
820-841. [Crossref]
481. Dongmei Fan, Guo-Ping Jiang, Yu-Rong Song, Yin-Wei Li. 2020.
Novel fake news spreading modelwith similarity on PSO-based
networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
549, 124319. [Crossref]
482. Gabriela Elisa Sued, Martín Rodriguez Kedikian. 2020. Noticias
falsas en Facebook: narrativas,circulación y verificación. Los
casos de Argentina y México. Estudios sobre el Mensaje
Periodístico 26:3, 1229-1242. [Crossref]
483. Edda Humprecht, Frank Esser, Peter Van Aelst. 2020. Resilience
to Online Disinformation: AFramework for Cross-National
Comparative Research. The International Journal of Press/Politics
25:3, 493-516. [Crossref]
484. Chris Tenove. 2020. Protecting Democracy from Disinformation:
Normative Threats and PolicyResponses. The International Journal
of Press/Politics 25:3, 517-537. [Crossref]
485. Sebastian Stier, Nora Kirkizh, Caterina Froio, Ralph Schroeder.
2020. Populist Attitudes and SelectiveExposure to Online News: A
Cross-Country Analysis Combining Web Tracking and Surveys. The
International Journal of Press/Politics 25:3, 426-446. [Crossref]
486. Yevgeniy Golovchenko, Cody Buntain, Gregory Eady, Megan A.
Brown, Joshua A. Tucker. 2020. Cross-Platform State Propaganda:
Russian Trolls on Twitter and YouTube during the 2016 U.S.
Presidential Election. The International Journal of
Press/Politics 25:3, 357-389. [Crossref]
487. Karolina Koc-Michalska, Bruce Bimber, Daniel Gomez, Matthew
Jenkins, Shelley Boulianne. 2020. Public Beliefs about Falsehoods
in News. The International Journal of Press/Politics 25:3, 447-
468. [Crossref]
488. Simon Loertscher, Leslie M. Marx. 2020. Digital monopolies:
Privacy protection or price regulation?.International Journal of
Industrial Organization 71, 102623. [Crossref]
489. Jordan R. Axt, Mark J. Landau, Aaron C. Kay. 2020. The
Psychological Appeal of Fake-NewsAttributions. Psychological
Science 31:7, 848-857. [Crossref]
490. William J. Brady, M. J. Crockett, Jay J. Van Bavel. 2020. The
MAD Model of Moral Contagion: TheRole of Motivation, Attention,
 and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online. Perspectives
on Psychological Science 15:4, 978-1010. [Crossref]
491. Philip E. Pare, Damir Vrabac, Henrik Sandberg, Karl H.
Johansson. Analysis, Online Estimation,and Validation of a
Competing Virus Model 2556-2561. [Crossref]
492. Shan Qu, Ziqi Zhao, Luoyi Fu, Xinbing Wang, Jun Xu. Joint
Inference on Truth/Rumor and TheirSources in Social Networks 924-
933. [Crossref]
493. Fabrizio Germano, Francesco Sobbrio. 2020. Opinion dynamics via
search engines (and otheralgorithmic gatekeepers). Journal of
Public Economics 187, 104188. [Crossref]
494. Gabriella Pasi, Marco De Grandis, Marco Viviani. Decision Making
over Multiple Criteria to AssessNews Credibility in Microblogging
Sites 1-8. [Crossref]
495. Jianxiong Guo, Yi Li, Weili Wu. 2020. Targeted Protection
Maximization in Social Networks. IEEE
Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 7:3, 1645-1655.
[Crossref]
496. Giandomenico Di Domenico, Marco Visentin. 2020. Fake news or
true lies? Reflections aboutproblematic contents in marketing.
International Journal of Market Research 62:4, 409-417.
[Crossref]
497. Christian Gläßel, Katrin Paula. 2020. Sometimes Less Is More:
Censorship, News Falsification, andDisapproval in 1989 East
Germany. American Journal of Political Science 64:3, 682-698.
[Crossref]
498. Mohamed Sami Ben Ali. 2020. Does ICT promote democracy
similarily in developed and developingcountries? A linear and
nonlinear panel threshold framework. Telematics and Informatics
50, 101382. [Crossref]
499. Anna-Katharina Jung, Björn Ross, Stefan Stieglitz. 2020.
Caution: Rumors ahead—A case study onthe debunking of false
information on Twitter. Big Data & Society 7:2, 205395172098012.
[Crossref]
500. Cristina M Pulido, Beatriz Villarejo-Carballido, Gisela Redondo-
Sama, Aitor Gómez. 2020. COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for
science-based information on coronavirus than for false
information. International Sociology 35:4, 377-392. [Crossref]
501. Tong Zeng, Daniel E. Acuna. 2020. Modeling citation worthiness
by using attention-basedbidirectional long short-term memory
networks and interpretable models. Scientometrics 124:1, 399-428.
[Crossref]
502. María Fernández-López, Manuel Perea. 2020. Language does not
modulate fake news credibility, butemotion does. Psicológica
Journal 41:2, 84-102. [Crossref]
503. Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan, Rishi Pugazhendhi. 2020.
Restructured society and environment: Areview on potential
 technological strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic.
Science of The Total Environment 725, 138858. [Crossref]
504. Emanuela Anton, Cosmin Alexandru Teodorescu, Vanesa Madalina
Vargas. 2020. Perspectives andreviews in the use of narrative
strategies for communicating fake news in the tourism industry.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Business
Excellence 14:1, 728-734. [Crossref]
505. Camelia Băeşu, Ruxandra Bejinaru. 2020. Knowledge management
strategies for leadership in thedigital business environment.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Business
Excellence 14:1, 646-656. [Crossref]
506. Mehmet Fatih ÇÖMLEKÇİ. 2020. Kamu Diplomasisinin Genişleyen
Repertuarı: Medya
Okuryazarlığı ve Doğruluk Kontrol Platformları. Akdeniz
Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi 211-229. [Crossref]
507. Ali Fikret AYDIN. 2020. POST-TRUTH DÖNEMDE SOSYAL MEDYADA
DEZENFORMASYON: COVİD-19 (YENİ KORONAVİRÜS) PANDEMİ SÜRECİ. ASYA
STUDIES 76-90. [Crossref]
508. Shirley S Ho, Tong Jee Goh, Yan Wah Leung. 2020. Let’s nab fake
science news: Predicting scientists’support for interventions
using the influence of presumed media influence model. Journalism
2, 146488492093748. [Crossref]
509. Neri Marsili. 2020. Retweeting: its linguistic and epistemic
value. Synthese 94. . [Crossref]
510. Concha Pérez-Curiel, Mar García-Gordillo. 2020. Del debate
electoral en TV al ciberdebate enTwitter. Encuadres de influencia
en las elecciones generales en España (28A). El profesional de la
información . [Crossref]
511. Hassan Zamir. Cybersecurity and Social Media 153-171. [Crossref]
512. Dumisani Moyo, Admire Mare, Trust Matsilele. Analytics-Driven
Journalism: Editorial metrics andthe reconfiguration of online
news production practices in African newsrooms 104-120.
[Crossref]
513. Matteo Cinelli, Stefano Cresci, Alessandro Galeazzi, Walter
Quattrociocchi, Maurizio Tesconi. 2020. The limited reach of fake
news on Twitter during 2019 European elections. PLOS ONE 15:6,
e0234689. [Crossref]
514. Patrick Taillon. From veracity to traceability 257-280.
[Crossref]
515. Berna Leticia Valle Canales, Julio César Chavarría Hernandez.
Semiotic Architecture of Viral Data .[Crossref]
516. Rachel E. Moran. 2020. Subscribing to Transparency: Trust-
Building Within Virtual Newsroomson Slack. Journalism Practice
15, 1-17. [Crossref]
517. Andreas Jungherr, Gonzalo Rivero, Daniel Gayo-Avello. Retooling
Politics 3, . [Crossref]
518. José Morais, Régine Kolinsky. 2020. Seeing thought: a cultural
cognitive tool. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 39. .
[Crossref]
519. Jamie L. Grigsby. 2020. Fake Ads: The Influence of Counterfeit
Native Ads on Brands and Consumers.Journal of Promotion Management
26:4, 569-592. [Crossref]
520. Katherine Ognyanova, David Lazer, Ronald E. Robertson, Christo
Wilson. 2020. Misinformation inaction: Fake news exposure is
linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when
your side is in power. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation
Review . [Crossref]
521. Pier Luigi Parcu. 2020. New digital threats to media pluralism
in the information age. Competition and Regulation in Network
Industries 21:2, 91-109. [Crossref]
522. Patrick Ferrucci, Toby Hopp, Chris J Vargo. 2020. Civic
engagement, social capital, and ideologicalextremity: Exploring
online political engagement and political expression on Facebook.
New Media & Society 22:6, 1095-1115. [Crossref]
523. Stephanie Jean Tsang. 2020. Issue stance and perceived
journalistic motives explain divergent audienceperceptions of
fake news. Journalism 10, 146488492092600. [Crossref]
524. Paul D. Kenny. 2020. “The Enemy of the People”: Populists and
Press Freedom. Political Research Quarterly 73:2, 261-275.
[Crossref]
525. Petra Pelletier, Ewa Drozda‐Senkowska. 2020. Towards a socially
situated rumouring: Historicaland critical perspectives of rumour
transmission. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 14:6. .
[Crossref]
526. Diyana Dobreva, Daniel Grinnell, Martin Innes. 2020. Prophets
and Loss: How “Soft Facts” on SocialMedia Influenced the Brexit
Campaign and Social Reactions to the Murder of Jo Cox MP. Policy
& Internet 12:2, 144-164. [Crossref]
527. Elizabeth F. Judge, Amir M. Korhani. 2020. Disinformation,
Digital Information Equality, andElectoral Integrity. Election
Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 19:2, 240-261. [Crossref]
528. Netina Tan. 2020. Electoral Management of Digital Campaigns and
Disinformation in East andSoutheast Asia. Election Law Journal:
Rules, Politics, and Policy 19:2, 214-239. [Crossref]
529. Radislav Vaisman. 2020. Subset selection via continuous
optimization with applications to networkdesign. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 192:6. . [Crossref]
530. Matthew Spradling, Jeremy Straub, Jay Strong. Introducing &
Evaluating ‘Nutrition Facts’ for OnlineContent 1-8. [Crossref]
531. Nadia M. Brashier, Daniel L. Schacter. 2020. Aging in an Era of
Fake News. Current Directions in Psychological Science 29:3, 316-
323. [Crossref]
532. Mi Rosie Jahng, Hyunmin Lee, Annisa Rochadiat. 2020. Public
relations practitioners’ managementof fake news: Exploring key
elements and acts of information authentication. Public Relations
Review 46:2, 101907. [Crossref]
533. Vanya Tiwari, Ruth G. Lennon, Thomas Dowling. Not Everything You
Read Is True! Fake NewsDetection using Machine learning Algorithms
1-4. [Crossref]
534. Virginia Small, James Warn. 2020. Impacts on food policy from
traditional and social media framingof moral outrage and cultural
stereotypes. Agriculture and Human Values 37:2, 295-309.
[Crossref]
535. Roberto Mosquera, Mofioluwasademi Odunowo, Trent McNamara,
Xiongfei Guo, Ragan Petrie.2020. The economic effects of Facebook.
Experimental Economics 23:2, 575-602. [Crossref]
536. Marcela Borge, Yann Shiou Ong, Sean Goggins. 2020. A
sociocultural approach to using socialnetworking sites as
learning tools. Educational Technology Research and Development
68:3, 1089-1120. [Crossref]
537. Michele Coscia, Luca Rossi. 2020. Distortions of political bias
in crowdsourced misinformationflagging. Journal of The Royal
Society Interface 17:167, 20200020. [Crossref]
538. Rebecca Roth, Jaclyn Abraham, Heidi Zinzow, Pamela Wisniewski,
Amro Khasawneh, Kapil ChalilMadathil. 2020. Evaluating News Media
Reports on the 'Blue Whale Challenge' for Adherence to Suicide
Prevention Safe Messaging Guidelines. Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction 4:CSCW1, 1-27. [Crossref]
539. Apoorva Chauhan, Amanda Lee Hughes. 2020. Trustworthiness
Perceptions of Social MediaResources Named after a Crisis Event.
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4:CSCW1, 1-
23. [Crossref]
540. Eslam Hussein, Prerna Juneja, Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Measuring
Misinformation in Video SearchPlatforms: An Audit Study on
YouTube. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
4:CSCW1, 1-27. [Crossref]
541. Sarah A. Gilbert. 2020. "I run the world's largest historical
outreach project and it's on a cesspoolof a website." Moderating
a Public Scholarship Site on Reddit: A Case Study of
r/AskHistorians. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction 4:CSCW1, 1-27. [Crossref]
542. Hyunjin Seo, Matthew Blomberg, Darcey Altschwager, Hong Tien Vu.
2020. Vulnerable populationsand misinformation: A mixed-methods
approach to underserved older adults’ online information
assessment. New Media & Society 40, 146144482092504. [Crossref]
543. Mario Haim. 2020. Agent-based Testing: An Automated Approach
toward Artificial Reactions toHuman Behavior. Journalism Studies
21:7, 895-911. [Crossref]
544. Eedan R. Amit-Danhi, Limor Shifman. 2020. Off the charts: user
engagement enhancers in electioninfographics. Information,
Communication & Society 8, 1-19. [Crossref]
545. Xiongfei Cao, Mingchuan Gong, Lingling Yu, Bao Dai. 2020.
Exploring the mechanism of socialmedia addiction: an empirical
study from WeChat users. Internet Research 30:4, 1305-1328.
[Crossref]
546. Margaret E. Roberts. 2020. Resilience to Online Censorship.
Annual Review of Political Science 23:1, 401-419. [Crossref]
547. Abdul Noury, Gerard Roland. 2020. Identity Politics and Populism
in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science 23:1, 421-439.
[Crossref]
548. Febbie Austina Kwanda, Trisha T. C. Lin. 2020. Fake news
practices in Indonesian newsrooms duringand after the Palu
earthquake: a hierarchy-of-influences approach. Information,
Communication & Society 23:6, 849-866. [Crossref]
549. Daniel J. Tamul, Adrienne Holz Ivory, Jessica Hotter, Jordan
Wolf. 2020. All the President’s Tweets: Effects of Exposure to
Trump’s “Fake News” Accusations on Perceptions of Journalists,
News Stories, and Issue Evaluation. Mass Communication and Society
23:3, 301-330. [Crossref]
550. Kevin Munger. 2020. All the News That’s Fit to Click: The
Economics of Clickbait Media. Political Communication 37:3, 376-
397. [Crossref]
551. Ewa Szumowska, Gabriela Czarnek, Piotr Dragon, Jonas De
Keersmaecker. 2020. Correction aftermisinformation: Does
engagement in media multitasking affect attitude adjustment?.
Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 4:2, 199-226.
[Crossref]
552. Victor Chidubem Iwuoha. 2020. ‘Fake News’ and ‘Half-truths’ in
the Framings of Boko HaramNarrative: Implications on
International Counterterrorism Responses. The International
Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs 22:2, 82-
103. [Crossref]
553. Samuli Laato, A. K. M. Najmul Islam, Muhammad Nazrul Islam, Eoin
Whelan. 2020. What drivesunverified information sharing and
cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic?. European Journal of
Information Systems 29:3, 288-305. [Crossref]
554. Darrel Robinson. 2020. Education, Family Background, and
Political Knowledge: A Test of theCompensation Hypothesis with
Identical Twins. Political Studies 68:2, 350-369. [Crossref]
555. Paulo Garcia, Francine Darroch, Leah West, Lauren BrooksCleator.
2020. Ethical Applications ofBig Data-Driven AI on Social Systems:
Literature Analysis and Example Deployment Use Case. Information
11:5, 235. [Crossref]
556. Yiangos Papanastasiou. 2020. Fake News Propagation and
Detection: A Sequential Model.Management Science 66:5, 1826-1846.
[Crossref]
557. Marçal Mora-Cantallops, Salvador Sánchez-Alonso, Elena García-
Barriocanal, Miguel-Ángel Sicilia.2020. Authority-Based
Conversation Tracking in Twitter: An Unattended Methodological
Approach. Applied Sciences 10:9, 3273. [Crossref]
558. Hugo Queiroz Abonizio, Janaina Ignacio de Morais, Gabriel
Marques Tavares, Sylvio Barbon Junior.2020. Language-Independent
Fake News Detection: English, Portuguese, and Spanish Mutual
Features. Future Internet 12:5, 87. [Crossref]
559. Santiago Alonso García, Gerardo Gómez García, Mariano Sanz
Prieto, Antonio José Moreno Guerrero,Carmen Rodríguez Jiménez.
2020. The Impact of Term Fake News on the Scientific Community.
Scientific Performance and Mapping in Web of Science. Social
Sciences 9:5, 73. [Crossref]
560. Elizabeth Riddle, Jill R. D. MacKay. 2020. Social Media Contexts
Moderate Perceptions of Animals.Animals 10:5, 845. [Crossref]
561. Jeremy Kepner, Tim Davis, Chansup Byun, William Arcand, David
Bestor, William Bergeron, VijayGadepally, Matthew Hubbell,
Michael Houle, Michael Jones, Anna Klein, Peter Michaleas, Lauren
Milechin, Julie Mullen, Andrew Prout, Antonio Rosa, Siddharth
Samsi, Charles Yee, Albert Reuther. 75,000,000,000 Streaming
Inserts/Second Using Hierarchical Hypersparse GraphBLAS Matrices
207-210. [Crossref]
562. Ian P. McCarthy, David Hannah, Leyland F. Pitt, Jane M. McCarthy.
2020. Confronting indifferencetoward truth: Dealing with
workplace bullshit. Business Horizons 63:3, 253-263. [Crossref]
563. Syed Shafat Ali, Tarique Anwar, Syed Afzal Murtaza Rizvi. 2020.
A Revisit to the Infection SourceIdentification Problem under
Classical Graph Centrality Measures. Online Social Networks and
Media 17, 100061. [Crossref]
564. Andrew M. Guess, Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler. 2020. Exposure
to untrustworthy websites in the2016 US election. Nature Human
Behaviour 4:5, 472-480. [Crossref]
565. Jay J. Van Bavel, Katherine Baicker, Paulo S. Boggio, Valerio
Capraro, Aleksandra Cichocka, MinaCikara, Molly J. Crockett, Alia
J. Crum, Karen M. Douglas, James N. Druckman, John Drury,
Oeindrila Dube, Naomi Ellemers, Eli J. Finkel, James H. Fowler,
Michele Gelfand, Shihui Han, S. Alexander Haslam, Jolanda Jetten,
Shinobu Kitayama, Dean Mobbs, Lucy E. Napper, Dominic J. Packer,
Gordon Pennycook, Ellen Peters, Richard E. Petty, David G. Rand,
Stephen D. Reicher, Simone Schnall, Azim Shariff, Linda J. Skitka,
Sandra Susan Smith, Cass R. Sunstein, Nassim Tabri, Joshua A.
Tucker, Sander van der Linden, Paul van Lange, Kim A. Weeden,
Michael J. A. Wohl, Jamil Zaki, Sean R. Zion, Robb Willer. 2020.
 Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic
response. Nature Human Behaviour 4:5, 460-471. [Crossref]
566. Selman Selim AKYÜZ, Birol GÜLNAR, Mete KAZAZ. 2020. Yeni Medyada
Haber GüvenilirliğiSorunu: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sahte/Yalan
Haberlere Yönelik Doğrulama Refleksleri. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum
Araştırmaları Dergisi 17:36, 2816-2840. [Crossref]
567. Nicholas W. Jankowski. Researching Fake News: A Selective
Examination of Empirical Studies248-255. [Crossref]
568. María José ARROJO. 2020. Las Ciencias de la Comunicación desde
el realismo científico: El problemade la complejidad y las
noticias falsas (fake news). ArtefaCToS. Revista de estudios sobre
la ciencia y la tecnología 9:1, 131. [Crossref]
569. Marcus W. Mayorga, Erin B. Hester, Emily Helsel, Bobi Ivanov,
Timothy L. Sellnow, Paul Slovic,William J. Burns, Dale Frakes.
Enhancing Public Resistance to “Fake News” 197-212. [Crossref]
570. Jacob L. Nelson. 2020. The Enduring Popularity of Legacy
Journalism: An Analysis of OnlineAudience Data. Media and
Communication 8:2, 40. [Crossref]
571. Moses Ofome Asak, Tshepang Bright Molale. 2020. Deconstructing
De-legitimization of MainstreamMedia as Sources of Authentic News
in the Post-Truth Era. Communicatio 12, 1-25. [Crossref]
572. Ellen Haggar. 2020. Fighting fake news: exploring George
Orwell's relationship to informationliteracy. Journal of
Documentation 76:5, 961-979. [Crossref]
573. Ludovico Iovino, Mattia D’Emidio, Marco Modica. 2020. Creating
an Holistic Emergency AlertManagement Platform. Journal of Urban
Technology 27:2, 3-20. [Crossref]
574. Jonathan Cinnamon. 2020. Data inequalities and why they matter
for development. Information Technology for Development 26:2,
214-233. [Crossref]
575. Yariv Tsfati, H. G. Boomgaarden, J. Strömbäck, R. Vliegenthart,
A. Damstra, E. Lindgren. 2020. Causes and consequences of
mainstream media dissemination of fake news: literature review
and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication
Association 44:2, 157-173. [Crossref]
576. Simone Chambers. 2020. Truth, Deliberative Democracy, and the
Virtues of Accuracy: Is Fake NewsDestroying the Public Sphere?.
Political Studies 003232171989081. [Crossref]
577. Hazrat M. Bahar. 2020. Social media and disinformation in war
propaganda: how Afghan governmentand the Taliban use Twitter.
Media Asia 47:1-2, 34-46. [Crossref]
578. Nicole Ruggiano, Taylor Ellis, Kimberly Gibson, Shayla Smith,
Carrie Turner, Allison Curington,Carroll Phelps, Alexis
Ferruccio, Keslie Fendley. 2020. The Unity Wall project: a
student-led community organizing effort to advance public
discourse on social justice. Journal of Community Practice 28:2,
132-143. [Crossref]
579. Lianwei Wu, Yuan Rao, Ambreen Nazir, Haolin Jin. 2020.
Discovering differential features: Adversarial learning for
information credibility evaluation. Information Sciences 516,
453-473. [Crossref]
580. Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand. 2020. Who falls for fake news?
The roles of bullshit receptivity,overclaiming, familiarity, and
analytic thinking. Journal of Personality 88:2, 185-200.
[Crossref]
581. Petros Iosifidis, Leighton Andrews. 2020. Regulating the
internet intermediaries in a post-truthworld: Beyond media
policy?. International Communication Gazette 82:3, 211-230.
[Crossref]
582. Jennifer Allen, Baird Howland, Markus Mobius, David Rothschild,
Duncan J. Watts. 2020. Evaluatingthe fake news problem at the
scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances 6:14,
eaay3539. [Crossref]
583. Nigel Hardiman, Shelley Burgin, Jia Shao. 2020. How Sharks and
Shark–Human Interactions areReported in Major Australian
Newspapers. Sustainability 12:7, 2683. [Crossref]
584. Mina Kwon, Michael J. Barone. 2020. A World of Mistrust: Fake
News, Mistrust Mind-Sets, and
Product Evaluations. Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research 5:2, 206-219. [Crossref]
585. Julii Brainard, Paul R Hunter. 2020. Misinformation making a
disease outbreak worse: outcomescompared for influenza,
monkeypox, and norovirus. SIMULATION 96:4, 365-374. [Crossref]
586. Jiawei Zhang, Bowen Dong, Philip S. Yu. FakeDetector: Effective
Fake News Detection with DeepDiffusive Neural Network 1826-1829.
[Crossref]
587. Kevin Koidl, Kristina G. Kapanova. 2020. Introduction to the
Special Issue: Re-Imagining a MoreTrustworthy Social Media
Future. Social Media + Society 6:2, 205630512092300. [Crossref]
588. Vanessa Ceia. 2020. Digital Ecosystems of Ideology: Linked Media
as Rhetoric in Spanish PoliticalTweets. Social Media + Society
6:2, 205630512092663. [Crossref]
589. Sander van der Linden, Costas Panagopoulos, Jon Roozenbeek.
2020. You are fake news: political biasin perceptions of fake
news. Media, Culture & Society 42:3, 460-470. [Crossref]
590. Peter J. Jost, Johanna Pünder, Isabell Schulze-Lohoff. 2020.
Fake news - Does perception mattermore than the truth?. Journal
of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 85, 101513. [Crossref]
591. Ícaro Joathan, Marcelo Alves. 2020. O Twitter como ferramenta
de campanha negativa não oficial:
uma análise da campanha eleitoral para a Prefeitura do Rio de
Janeiro em 2016. Galáxia (São Paulo) 31:43, 81-98. [Crossref]
592. Johannes Buchheim. 2020. Rechtlicher Richtigkeitsschutz. Der
Staat 59:2, 159-194. [Crossref]
593. Elif Başak SARIOĞLU. 2020. Yalan Haber, “Post-Truth” Kavramı ve
Medya Üçlemesi: GeçmiştenGünümüze Gündem Belirleyen Örnekler.
İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 9:1, 377-397.
[Crossref]
594. Patrick Mutahi, Brian Kimari. 2020. Fake News and the 2017 Kenyan
Elections. Communicatio 3, 1-19. [Crossref]
595. Edda Humprecht. 2020. How Do They Debunk “Fake News”? A Cross-
National Comparison ofTransparency in Fact Checks. Digital
Journalism 8:3, 310-327. [Crossref]
596. Matteo Cinelli, Emanuele Brugnoli, Ana Lucia Schmidt, Fabiana
Zollo, Walter Quattrociocchi,Antonio Scala. 2020. Selective
exposure shapes the Facebook news diet. PLOS ONE 15:3, e0229129.
[Crossref]
597. Oberiri Destiny Apuke, Bahiyah Omar. 2020. FAKE NEWS
PROLIFERATION IN NIGERIA:
CONSEQUENCES, MOTIVATIONS, AND PREVENTION THROUGH AWARENESS
STRATEGIES. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 8:2, 318-327.
[Crossref]
598. Panayiota Kendeou, Rina Harsch, Reese Butterfuss, Joseph Aubele,
Jasmine Kim. The Challenge ofFake News 477-494. [Crossref]
599. Michael Schudson, Gal Beckerman. “Old” Media, “New” Media,
Hybrid Media, and the ChangingCharacter of Political
Participation 269-289. [Crossref]
600. Alessandro Nai. 2020. The Trump Paradox: How Cues from a Disliked
Source Foster Resistance toPersuasion. Politics and Governance
8:1, 122. [Crossref]
601. Deen Freelon, Chris Wells. 2020. Disinformation as Political
Communication. Political Communication 37:2, 145-156. [Crossref]
602. Samantha Bradshaw, Philip N. Howard, Bence Kollanyi, Lisa-Maria
Neudert. 2020. Sourcing andAutomation of Political News and
Information over Social Media in the United States, 2016-2018.
Political Communication 37:2, 173-193. [Crossref]
603. Franziska B. Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, JungHwan
Yang. 2020. Political Astroturfing onTwitter: How to Coordinate
a Disinformation Campaign. Political Communication 37:2, 256-280.
[Crossref]
604. Fabian Zimmermann, Matthias Kohring. 2020. Mistrust,
Disinforming News, and Vote Choice: APanel Survey on the Origins
and Consequences of Believing Disinformation in the 2017 German
Parliamentary Election. Political Communication 37:2, 215-237.
[Crossref]
605. Ozan Candogan, Kimon Drakopoulos. 2020. Optimal Signaling of
Content Accuracy: Engagementvs. Misinformation. Operations
Research . [Crossref]
606. Xichen Zhang, Ali A. Ghorbani. 2020. An overview of online fake
news: Characterization, detection,and discussion. Information
Processing & Management 57:2, 102025. [Crossref]
607. Gabriele Gratton, Galina Zudenkova. 2020. Introduction to the
Special Issue Political Games: Strategy,Persuasion, and Learning.
Games 11:1, 10. [Crossref]
608. Lei Guo, Chris Vargo. 2020. “Fake News” and Emerging Online
Media Ecosystem: An IntegratedIntermedia Agenda-Setting Analysis
of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Communication Research
47:2, 178-200. [Crossref]
609. Amber E. Boydstun, Regina G. Lawrence. 2020. When Celebrity and
Political Journalism Collide: Reporting Standards, Entertainment,
and the Conundrum of Covering Donald Trump’s 2016 Campaign.
Perspectives on Politics 18:1, 128-143. [Crossref]
610. Joseph Downing, Richard Dron. 2020. Tweeting Grenfell: Discourse
and networks in criticalconstructions of British Muslim social
boundaries on social media. New Media & Society 22:3, 449-469.
[Crossref]
611. Hunt Allcott, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer, Matthew Gentzkow.
2020. The Welfare Effects ofSocial Media. American Economic Review
110:3, 629-676. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
612. Edson C Tandoc, Darren Lim, Rich Ling. 2020. Diffusion of
disinformation: How social media usersrespond to fake news and
why. Journalism 21:3, 381-398. [Crossref]
613. Brian C. Britt. 2020. Modeling viral diffusion using quantum
computational network simulation.Quantum Engineering 2:1. .
[Crossref]
614. Chandan Kumar Jha, Oasis Kodila-Tedika. 2020. Does social media
promote democracy? Someempirical evidence. Journal of Policy
Modeling 42:2, 271-290. [Crossref]
615. Mamoun Masoud Abdulqader, Yousof Zohair Almunsour. 2020.
Investigating the Effects of SocialMedia on Higher Education with
a Case Study. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 19:01,
2040023. [Crossref]
616. Kassegn Berhanu, Sahil Raj. 2020. The trustworthiness of travel
and tourism information sources ofsocial media: perspectives of
international tourists visiting Ethiopia. Heliyon 6:3, e03439.
[Crossref]
617. Laura Faragó, Anna Kende, Péter Krekó. 2020. We Only Believe in
News That We DoctoredOurselves. Social Psychology 51:2, 77-90.
[Crossref]
618. Mihai-Ionuț Pop. 2020. Scoring Model for the Detection of Fake
News. Studia Universitatis „Vasile Goldis” Arad – Economics Series
30:1, 91-102. [Crossref]
619. . Theoretical Approaches 83-202. [Crossref]
620. Uttaran Dutta, Judith N. Martin. Sociological Approaches to
Intercultural Communication 170-186. [Crossref]
621. Robert Dover. 2020. SOCMINT: a shifting balance of opportunity.
Intelligence and National Security 35:2, 216-232. [Crossref]
622. Camilla Salvatore, Silvia Biffignandi, Annamaria Bianchi. 2020.
Social Media and Twitter DataQuality for New Social Indicators.
Social Indicators Research 31. . [Crossref]
623. Rosa Scardigno, Giuseppe Mininni. 2020. The Rhetoric Side of
Fake News: A New Weapon for AntiPolitics?. World Futures 76:2,
81-101. [Crossref]
624. Margaret Van Heekeren. 2020. The Curative Effect of Social Media
on Fake News: A Historical Reevaluation. Journalism Studies 21:3,
306-318. [Crossref]
625. Benjamin D. Horne, Jeppe Nørregaard, Sibel Adali. 2020. Robust
Fake News Detection Over Timeand Attack. ACM Transactions on
Intelligent Systems and Technology 11:1, 1-23. [Crossref]
626. Melanie Freeze, Mary Baumgartner, Peter Bruno, Jacob R.
Gunderson, Joshua Olin, Morgan QuinnRoss, Justine Szafran. 2020.
Fake Claims of Fake News: Political Misinformation, Warnings, and
the Tainted Truth Effect. Political Behavior 31. . [Crossref]
627. Graham G. Scott, Zara P. Brodie, Megan J. Wilson, Lucy Ivory,
Christopher J. Hand, Sara C. Sereno.2020. Celebrity abuse on
Twitter: The impact of tweet valence, volume of abuse, and dark
triad personality factors on victim blaming and perceptions of
severity. Computers in Human Behavior 103, 109-119. [Crossref]
628. Sean Sands, Colin Campbell, Carla Ferraro, Alexis Mavrommatis.
2020. Seeing light in the dark: Investigating the dark side of
social media and user response strategies. European Management
Journal 38:1, 45-53. [Crossref]
629. Tinggui Chen, Qianqian Li, Peihua Fu, Jianjun Yang, Chonghuan
Xu, Guodong Cong, GongfaLi. 2020. Public Opinion Polarization by
Individual Revenue from the Social Preference Theory.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
17:3, 946. [Crossref]
630. Sachin Kumar, Rohan Asthana, Shashwat Upadhyay, Nidhi Upreti,
Mohammad Akbar. 2020. Fake news detection using deep learning
models: A novel approach. Transactions on Emerging
Telecommunications Technologies 31:2. . [Crossref]
631. Alicea Lieberman, Juliana Schroeder. 2020. Two social lives: How
differences between online andoffline interaction influence
social outcomes. Current Opinion in Psychology 31, 16-21.
[Crossref]
632. Michael L. Barnett, Irene Henriques, Bryan W. Husted. 2020. The
Rise and Stall of StakeholderInfluence: How the Digital Age Limits
Social Control. Academy of Management Perspectives 34:1, 48-64.
[Crossref]
633. Oscar Barrera, Sergei Guriev, Emeric Henry, Ekaterina
Zhuravskaya. 2020. Facts, alternative facts,and fact checking in
times of post-truth politics. Journal of Public Economics 182,
104123. [Crossref]
634. Feyza Altunbey Ozbay, Bilal Alatas. 2020. Fake news detection
within online social media usingsupervised artificial
intelligence algorithms. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its
Applications 540, 123174. [Crossref]
635. Seonhee Yang. 2020. Reality and Challenges of Traditional
Journalism in the Era of YouTubeJournalism. Journal of Social
Science 31:1, 245-262. [Crossref]
636. Lei Guo, Jacob A. Rohde, H. Denis Wu. 2020. Who is responsible
for Twitter’s echo chamberproblem? Evidence from 2016 U.S.
election networks. Information, Communication & Society 23:2,
234-251. [Crossref]
637. Juan Francisco Sánchez Barrilao. 2020. El Internet en la era
Trump: aproximación constitucional auna nueva realidad. Estudios
en Derecho a la Información 1:9, 49. [Crossref]
638. Reema Aswani, Arpan Kumar Kar, P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan. 2020.
Experience. Journal of Data and Information Quality 12:1, 1-18.
[Crossref]
639. Francesco Pierri, Alessandro Artoni, Stefano Ceri. 2020.
Investigating Italian disinformation spreadingon Twitter in the
context of 2019 European elections. PLOS ONE 15:1, e0227821.
[Crossref]
640. Louis‐Philippe Rondeau. Virtual Reality and Alternative Facts:
The Subjective Realities of DigitalCommunities 41-49. [Crossref]
641. Katherine Lynch, Shaunna Hunter. 2020. Conflicting authority.
Reference Services Review ahead-ofprint:ahead-of-print. .
[Crossref]
642. Luping Wang, Susan R. Fussell. 2020. More Than a Click.
Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction 4:GROUP, 1-
20. [Crossref]
643. Jianing Li. 2020. Toward a Research Agenda on Political
Misinformation and Corrective Information.Political Communication
37:1, 125-135. [Crossref]
644. Giselle Rampersad, Turki Althiyabi. 2020. Fake news: Acceptance
by demographics and culture onsocial media. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics 17:1, 1-11. [Crossref]
645. Douglas Brommesson, Ann-Marie Ekengren. EU Foreign and Security
Policy in a Mediatized Age193-215. [Crossref]
646. Valesca Lima. Sustainable Citizenship and the Prospect of
Participation and Governance in the DigitalEra 99-115. [Crossref]
647. Luis Terán. Discussion and Conclusions 133-143. [Crossref]
648. Georg Aichholzer, Gloria Rose. Experience with Digital Tools in
Different Types of e-Participation93-140. [Crossref]
649. Bernhard Lutz, Marc T. P. Adam, Stefan Feuerriegel, Nicolas
Pröllochs, Dirk Neumann. Affective
Information Processing of Fake News: Evidence from NeuroIS 121-
128. [Crossref]
650. Leona Hutchinson, Markus Appel. Die Psychologie des Gerüchts
157-166. [Crossref]
651. Umaru A. Pate, Adamkolo Mohammed Ibrahim. Fake News, Hate Speech
and Nigeria's Struggle forDemocratic Consolidation 89-112.
[Crossref]
652. Norbert Merkovity. Political Campaign Communication in the
Information Age 166-180. [Crossref]
653. Katrina Kosec, Leonard Wantchekon. 2020. Can information improve
rural governance and servicedelivery?. World Development 125,
104376. [Crossref]
654. Des Freedman. Media and the Neoliberal Swindle: From ‘Fake News’
to ‘Public Service’ 215-231. [Crossref]
655. Tomer Tuchner, Gail Gilboa-Freedman. Crying “Wolf” in a Network
Structure: The Influence ofNode-Generated Signals 301-312.
[Crossref]
656. Stefano Guarino, Noemi Trino, Alessandro Chessa, Gianni Riotta.
Beyond Fact-Checking: NetworkAnalysis Tools for Monitoring
Disinformation in Social Media 436-447. [Crossref]
657. Paul R. Carr, Michelli Aparecida Daros, Sandra Liliana Cuervo
Liliana Cuervo, Gina Thésée. SocialMedia and the Quest for
Democracy 1-24. [Crossref]
658. Brian Robert Calfano. 2020. Government-Corroborated
Conspiracies: Motivating Response to (andBelief in) a Coordinated
Crime. PS: Political Science & Politics 53:1, 64-71. [Crossref]
659. Evan Sadler. 2020. Diffusion Games. American Economic Review
110:1, 225-270. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
660. Tarek Hamdi, Hamda Slimi, Ibrahim Bounhas, Yahya Slimani. A
Hybrid Approach for Fake NewsDetection in Twitter Based on User
Features and Graph Embedding 266-280. [Crossref]
661. Theresa Davidson, Lee Farquhar. Prejudice and Social Media:
Attitudes Toward Illegal Immigrants,Refugees, and Transgender
People 151-167. [Crossref]
662. Andreas Kaplan, Michael Haenlein. 2020. Rulers of the world,
unite! The challenges and
opportunities of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons 63:1,
37-50. [Crossref]
663. Carsten Hartmann. Gefangen in der Filterblase? 45-62. [Crossref]
664. Jozef Kapusta, Ľubomír Benko, Michal Munk. Fake News
Identification Based on Sentiment andFrequency Analysis 400-409.
[Crossref]
665. Xiangtong Meng, Wei Zhang, Youwei Li, Xing Cao, Xu Feng. 2020.
Social media effect, investorrecognition and the cross-section of
 stock returns. International Review of Financial Analysis 67,
101432. [Crossref]
666. Samuel Kai Wah Chu. Review of Social Media 13-29. [Crossref]
667. Paul R. Carr, Michelli Aparecida Daros, Sandra Liliana Cuervo,
Gina Thésée. Social Media and theQuest for Democracy 1-24.
[Crossref]
668. Arghya Ray, Pradip Kumar Bala. 2020. Social media for improved
process management inorganizations during disasters. Knowledge
and Process Management 27:1, 63-74. [Crossref]
669. Christian Stöcker. How Facebook and Google Accidentally Created
a Perfect Ecosystem for TargetedDisinformation 129-149.
[Crossref]
670. Kelechi Okechukwu Amakoh. Maintaining Journalistic Authority
168-181. [Crossref]
671. Amir Forouharfar. Cyber-tech Companies and Public Mind Control
1-7. [Crossref]
672. Xingyu Chen, John Yu, Pamela Goh, Loo Seng Neo, Verity Er, Majeed
Khader. Crime-Fake NewsNexus 52-65. [Crossref]
673. Antonio Badia. An Overview (and Criticism) of Methods to Detect
Fake Content Online 1053-1061. [Crossref]
674. Rofhiwa F. Mukhudwana. #Zuma Must Fall This February: Homophily
on the Echo-Chambers ofPolitical Leaders’ Twitter Accounts 175-
202. [Crossref]
675. Cornelius Puschmann. Technische Faktoren bei der Verbreitung
propagandistischer Inhalte imInternet und den sozialen Medien
539-549. [Crossref]
676. Yongtian Yu, Guang Yu, Tong Li, Qingli Man, Qiuping Chen. 2020.
Quantitative Characterizationand Identification of the Company-
Related Disinformation Channel Among Media. IEEE Access 8, 29196-
29204. [Crossref]
677. Elmie Nekmat. 2020. Nudge Effect of Fact-Check Alerts: Source
Influence and Media Skepticismon Sharing of News Misinformation
in Social Media. Social Media + Society 6:1, 205630511989732.
[Crossref]
678. SeongKu Kang, Junyoung Hwang, Hwanjo Yu. Multi-Modal Component
Embedding for Fake NewsDetection 1-6. [Crossref]
679. Emerson Yoshiaki Okano, Zebin Liu, Donghong Ji, Evandro Eduardo
Seron Ruiz. Fake NewsDetection on Fake.Br Using Hierarchical
Attention Networks 143-152. [Crossref]
680. Gabriela Wick-Pedro, Roney L. S. Santos, Oto A. Vale, Thiago A.
S. Pardo, Kalina Bontcheva,Carolina Scarton. Linguistic Analysis
Model for Monitoring User Reaction on Satirical News for Brazilian
Portuguese 313-320. [Crossref]
681. Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, Ville-Juhani Ilmarinen, Florencia M.
Sortheix. 2020. Polarization in the wakeof the European refugee
crisis – A longitudinal study of the Finnish political elite’s
 attitudes towards refugees and the environment. Journal of Social
and Political Psychology 8:1, 173-197. [Crossref]
682. Sho Tsugawa. 2020. ##############. IEICE Communications Society
Magazine 13:4, 282-288. [Crossref]
683. S. Jalil Kazemitabar, Arash A. Amini. Approximate Identification
of the Optimal Epidemic Sourcein Complex Networks 107-125.
[Crossref]
684. Shawyn C. Lee. 26. [Crossref]
685. Carola Binder. 2020. Coronavirus Fears and Macroeconomic
Expectations. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
686. Stanislaw P. Stawicki, Michael S. Firstenberg, Thomas J.
Papadimos. The Growing Role of Social
Media in International Health Security: The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly 341-357. [Crossref]
687. Freek van Gils, Wieland Müller, Jens Prufer. 2020. Big Data and
Democracy. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
688. Daniel A. Effron, Medha Raj. 2020. Misinformation and Morality:
Encountering Fake-NewsHeadlines Makes Them Seem Less Unethical to
Publish and Share. Psychological Science 31:1, 75-87. [Crossref]
689. Anmol Uppal, Vipul Sachdeva, Seema Sharma. Fake news detection
using discourse segment structureanalysis 751-756. [Crossref]
690. Braulio Andres Soncco Pimentel, Roxana L. Q. Portugal. Fake News
in Spanish: Towards the Buildingof a Corpus Based on Twitter 333-
339. [Crossref]
691. Fedyukovsky Alexander. 2020. False messages in scientific
publics using the example of Russian socialnetwork Vkontakte. E3S
Web of Conferences 164, 12005. [Crossref]
692. Wasim Ahmed, Josep Vidal-Alaball, Joseph Downing, Francesc López
Seguí. 2020. COVID-19 andthe 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network
Analysis of Twitter Data. Journal of Medical Internet Research
22:5, e19458. [Crossref]
693. Joan Balcells, Albert Padró-Solanet. 2020. Crossing Lines in the
Twitter Debate on Catalonia’sIndependence. The International
Journal of Press/Politics 25:1, 28-52. [Crossref]
694. Juan S. Morales. 2020. Perceived Popularity and Online Political
Dissent: Evidence from Twitter in
Venezuela. The International Journal of Press/Politics 25:1, 5-
27. [Crossref]
695. Oliver James, Asmus Leth Olsen, Donald Moynihan, Gregg G. Van
Ryzin. . [Crossref]
696. Enrique Muriel-Torrado, Danielle Borges Pereira. Relations
Between the Concepts of Disinformationand the Fogg Behavior Model
147-163. [Crossref]
697. Andrea Hrckova, Robert Moro, Ivan Srba, Maria Bielikova.
Examining the Linking Patterns andLink Building Strategies of
 Mainstream and Partisan Online News Media in Central Europe 133-
146. [Crossref]
698. Julian Bühler, Matthias Murawski, Mahdieh Darvish, Markus Bick.
Developing a Model to MeasureFake News Detection Literacy of
Social Media Users 213-227. [Crossref]
699. Juan Cao, Peng Qi, Qiang Sheng, Tianyun Yang, Junbo Guo, Jintao
Li. Exploring the Role of VisualContent in Fake News Detection
141-161. [Crossref]
700. Kunwoo Park, Taegyun Kim, Seunghyun Yoon, Meeyoung Cha, Kyomin
Jung. BaitWatcher: ALightweight Web Interface for the Detection
of Incongruent News Headlines 229-252. [Crossref]
701. Thami Ghorfi, Imad-eddine Hatimi. Impact of Social Media Usage
on MENA Countries Economy77-99. [Crossref]
702. Paul R. Carr, Michelli Aparecida Daros, Sandra Liliana Cuervo,
Gina Thésée. Social Media and theQuest for Democracy 441-464.
[Crossref]
703. Peter Arthur. Disruptive Technologies, Democracy, Governance and
National Elections in Africa: Back to the Future? 17-38.
[Crossref]
704. Fadi Safieddine, Rawad Hammad. Fake News 103-121. [Crossref]
705. Abbas Moallem. Trust in News and Information in Social Media
129-134. [Crossref]
706. Liza Potts, Stephanie Mahnke. Subverting the Platform
Flexibility of Twitter to SpreadMisinformation 157-172.
[Crossref]
707. Eugène Loos, Jordy Nijenhuis. Consuming Fake News: A Matter of
Age? The Perception of PoliticalFake News Stories in Facebook Ads
69-88. [Crossref]
708. Eliana Providel, Marcelo Mendoza. Using Deep Learning to Detect
Rumors in Twitter 321-334. [Crossref]
709. Paul R. Carr, Sandra Liliana Cuervo Sanchez, Michelli Aparecida
Daros. 2020. Citizen Engagementin the Contemporary Era of Fake
News: Hegemonic Distraction or Control of the Social Media
Context?. Postdigital Science and Education 2:1, 39-60.
[Crossref]
710. Hadas Emma Kedar. 2020. Fake News in Media Art: Fake News as a
Media Art Practice Vs. FakeNews in Politics. Postdigital Science
and Education 2:1, 132-146. [Crossref]
711. Giancarlo Fedeli. 2020. ‘Fake news’ meets tourism: a proposed
research agenda. Annals of Tourism Research 80, 102684. [Crossref]
712. Milan Zafirovski. 2020. Indicators of Militarism and Democracy
in Comparative Context: HowMilitaristic Tendencies Influence
Democratic Processes in OECD Countries 2010–2016. Social
Indicators Research 147:1, 159-202. [Crossref]
713. Terry Flew. 2020. Trust and the Future Sustainability of News:
The Collapse of TraditionalNewsrooms and the Rise of Subscriber-
Funded News Media. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
714. Andrey Simonov, Szymon Sacher, Jean-Pierre H. Dube, Shirsho
Biswas. 2020. The PersuasiveEffect of Fox News: Non-Compliance
with Social Distancing During the Covid-19 Pandemic. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
715. Andrey Simonov, Szymon Sacher, Jean-Pierre H. Dube, Shirsho
Biswas. 2020. The Persuasive Effectof Fox News: Non-Compliance
with Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
716. Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman. 2020. COVID-19-Related Fake News in Social
Media. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
717. Nahema Marchal. 2020. Conceptualizing the Impact of Digital
Interference in Elections: A Frameworkand Agenda for Future
Research. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
718. Heini I. Skorini. Science as a Political Battlefield 29-53.
[Crossref]
719. Thomas Koch, Nora Denner. Fake News als Gefahr für die
öffentliche Meinung? 73-90. [Crossref]
720. Łukasz Kwaśniewicz, Grzegorz M. Wójcik, Andrzej Kawiak, Piotr
Schneider, Adam Wierzbicki. HowYou Say or What You Say? Neural
Activity in Message Credibility Evaluation 312-326. [Crossref]
721. Andrzej Kawiak, Grzegorz M. Wójcik, Lukasz Kwasniewicz, Piotr
Schneider, Adam Wierzbicki. LookWho’s Talking: Modeling Decision
Making Based on Source Credibility 327-341. [Crossref]
722. Sandra González-Bailón, Michael Xenos. 2020. Surveys
Underestimate Online News Exposure: AComparison of Self-Reported
and Observational Data in Nine Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
723. Julio Cesar Lemes de Castro. 2020. Máquinas de guerra híbrida
em plataformas algorítmicas (HybridWar Machines on Algorithmic
Platforms). SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
724. Christopher Whyte. 2020. Cyber conflict or democracy “hacked”?
How cyber operations enhanceinformation warfare. Journal of
Cybersecurity 6:1. . [Crossref]
725. Lixuan Ding, Lanting Ding, Richard O. Sinnott. Fake News
Classification of Social Media ThroughSentiment Analysis 52-67.
[Crossref]
726. Mohamed K. Elhadad, Kin Fun Li, Fayez Gebali. 2020. Detecting
Misleading Information onCOVID-19. IEEE Access 8, 165201-165215.
[Crossref]
727. Jacqui Taylor-Jackson, Sophie Matthews. The Influence of Traits
Associated with Autism SpectrumDisorder (ASD) on the Detection of
Fake News 464-472. [Crossref]
728. Francesca Spezzano, Indhumathi Gurunathan. Protecting the Web
from Misinformation 1-27. [Crossref]
729. Martin Oliver. 2020. Infrastructure and the Post-Truth Era: is
Trump Twitter’s Fault?. Postdigital Science and Education 2:1,
17-38. [Crossref]
730. Curd Knüpfer. Medien 317-332. [Crossref]
731. Thanh Cong Truong, Quoc Bao Diep, Ivan Zelinka, Roman Senkerik.
Supervised ClassificationMethods for Fake News Identification
445-454. [Crossref]
732. Doowon Jeong. 2020. Artificial Intelligence Security Threat,
Crime, and Forensics: Taxonomy andOpen Issues. IEEE Access 8,
184560-184574. [Crossref]
733. Bernhard Lutz, Marc T. P. Adam, Stefan Feuerriegel, Nicolas
Pröllochs, Dirk Neumann. IdentifyingLinguistic Cues of Fake News
Associated with Cognitive and Affective Processing: Evidence from
NeuroIS 16-23. [Crossref]
734. Leonardo Bursztyn, Ingar Haaland, Aakaash Rao, Christopher Roth.
2020. I Have Nothing AgainstThem, But…. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
735. Eduardo C. Garrido-Merchán, Cristina Puente, Rafael Palacios.
Fake News Detection by Means ofUncertainty Weighted Causal Graphs
13-24. [Crossref]
736. Sergei Guriev, Elias Papaioannou. 2020. The Political Economy
of Populism. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
737. Valentin Matei, Alexandru Pavel, Ana Giurgiuca, Alina Roșca,
Arina Sofia, Irina Duțu, CătălinaTudose. 2020. <p>Knowledge of
Prevention Measures and Information About Coronavirus in Romanian
Male Patients with Severe Mental Illness and Severe Alcohol Use
Disorder</p>. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Volume 16,
2857-2864. [Crossref]
738. Christophe Maze, Arthur Haye, Joshua Sarre, Michel Galaup,
Pierre Lagarrigue, Catherine PonsLelardeux. A Board Game to Fight
Against Misinformation and Fake News 326-334. [Crossref]
739. Giuseppe Sansonetti, Fabio Gasparetti, Giuseppe D'aniello,
Alessandro Micarelli. 2020. UnreliableUsers Detection in Social
Media: Deep Learning Techniques for Automatic Detection. IEEE
Access 8, 213154-213167. [Crossref]
740. Yida Mu, Nikolaos Aletras. 2020. Identifying Twitter users who
repost unreliable news sources withlinguistic information. PeerJ
Computer Science 6, e325. [Crossref]
741. Thomas Fujiwara, Karsten Müller, Carlo Schwarz. 2020. The Effect
of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
742. Nan Sun, Jun Zhang, Shang Gao, Leo Yu Zhang, Seyit Camtepe, Yang
Xiang. Data Analytics ofCrowdsourced Resources for Cybersecurity
Intelligence 3-21. [Crossref]
743. Line van den Berg, Malvin Gattinger. Dealing with Unreliable
Agents in Dynamic Gossip 51-67. [Crossref]
744. Lauren A. Ricciardelli, Larry Nackerud, Adam E. Quinn, Mary
Sewell, Beatrice Casiano. 2020. Socialmedia use, attitudes, and
knowledge among social work students: Ethical implications for
the social work profession. Social Sciences & Humanities Open
2:1, 100008. [Crossref]
745. Chunhong Shi, Zhihua Guo, Chan Luo, Changbin Lei, Pan Li. 2020.
The Psychological Impactand Associated Factors of COVID-19 on the
General Public in Hunan, China. Risk Management and Healthcare
Policy Volume 13, 3187-3199. [Crossref]
746. Marco T. Bastos, Shawn Walker, Michael Simeone. 2020. The IMPED
Model: Detecting LowQuality Information in Social Media. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
747. Ludovic Rheault, Andreea Musulan. 2020. Investigating the Role
of Social Bots During the 2019 Canadian Election. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
748. Lin Peng, Linyi Zhang. 2020. Social Ties and Peer Effects in
Crowdfunding Markets. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
749. Danica Čigoja-Piper. 2020. Critical thinking in the digital era:
Click or critique. Kultura :169, 130-142. [Crossref]
750. Heitor Pasquim, Marcos Oliveira, Cássia Baldini Soares. 2020.
Fake news sobre drogas: pós-verdadee desinformação. Saúde e
Sociedade 29:2. . [Crossref]
751. Angela Theresa Zuffo Yabrude, Andressa Caroline Martins de
Souza, Catarine Wiggers de Campos,Loyse Bohn, Marcela Tiboni.
2020. Desafios das Fake News com Idosos durante Infodemia sobre
Covid-19: Experiência de Estudantes de Medicina. Revista
Brasileira de Educação Médica 44:suppl 1. . [Crossref]
752. Enrique MURIEL-TORRADO, Danielle Borges PEREIRA. 2020.
Correlations between theconcepts of disinformation and Fogg’s
Behavior Model. Transinformação 32. . [Crossref]
753. Iknoor Singh, Deepak P., Anoop K.. On the Coherence of Fake News
Articles 591-607. [Crossref]
754. Tobias Konitzer, Jennifer Allen, Stephanie Eckman, Baird
Howland, Markus M. Mobius, David M.Rothschild, Duncan Watts. 2020.
Measuring News Consumption With Behavioral Versus Survey Data.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
755. Leonardo Madio, Martin Quinn. 2020. User-Generated Content,
Strategic Moderation, andAdvertising. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
756. Marialaura Previti, Victor Rodriguez-Fernandez, David Camacho,
Vincenza Carchiolo, Michele
Malgeri. Fake News Detection Using Time Series and User Features
Classification 339-353. [Crossref]
757. Paul Machete, Marita Turpin. The Use of Critical Thinking to
Identify Fake News: A SystematicLiterature Review 235-246.
[Crossref]
758. Natasha Omezi, Hamid Jahankhani. Proposed Forensic Guidelines
for the Investigation of Fake News231-265. [Crossref]
759. Mohammad Abouei Mehrizi, Federico Corò, Emilio Cruciani,
Gianlorenzo D’Angelo. ElectionControl Through Social Influence
with Unknown Preferences 397-410. [Crossref]
760. M. Abouei Mehrizi, Gianlorenzo D’Angelo. Multi-winner Election
Control via Social Influence331-348. [Crossref]
761. Junxiao Xue, Yabo Wang, Shuning Xu, Lei Shi, Lin Wei, Huawei
Song. MVFNN: Multi-VisionFusion Neural Network for Fake News
Picture Detection 112-119. [Crossref]
762. Leonie Schaewitz, Nicole C. Krämer. Combating Disinformation:
Effects of Timing and CorrectionFormat on Factual Knowledge and
Personal Beliefs 233-245. [Crossref]
763. Lia Bozarth, Ceren Budak. 2020. Market Forces: Quantifying the
Role of Top Credible Ad Serversin the Fake News Ecosystem. SSRN
Electronic Journal 31. . [Crossref]
764. Dongfang Gaozhao. 2020. Flagging Fake News on Social Media: An
Experimental Study of MediaConsumers’ Identification of Fake
News. SSRN Electronic Journal 31. . [Crossref]
765. Mark Chong, Murphy Choy. An Empirically Supported Taxonomy of
Misinformation 117-138. [Crossref]
766. Mehmet Fatih Çömlekçi. Combating Fake News Online 273-289.
[Crossref]
767. Sumit S. Deole, Yue Huang. 2020. Suffering and Prejudice: Do
Negative Emotions PredictImmigration Concerns?. SSRN Electronic
Journal 56. . [Crossref]
768. Xintong Han, Mandy Hu. 2020. Intensified Ideological Online
Clashes with Group Political Bias.SSRN Electronic Journal 31. .
[Crossref]
769. Adam D. Moore. 2020. FREE SPEECH, PRIVACY, AND AUTONOMY. Social
Philosophy and
Policy 37:2, 31-51. [Crossref]
770. Charles Angelucci, Andrea Prat. 2020. Measuring Voters'
Knowledge of Political News. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
771. Ramona Dagostino, Janet Gao, Pengfei Ma. 2020. Partisanship in
Loan Pricing. SSRN Electronic Journal 28. . [Crossref]
772. Scott Clifford, Yongkwang Kim, Brian W Sullivan. 2019. An
Improved Question Format forMeasuring Conspiracy Beliefs. Public
Opinion Quarterly 83:4, 690-722. [Crossref]
773. Julien Figeac, Tristan Salord, Guillaume Cabanac, Ophélie
Fraisier, Pierre Ratinaud, Fanny Seffusatti,Nikos Smyrnaios.
2019. Facebook favorise-t-il la désinformation et la polarisation
 idéologique des opinions ?. Questions de communication :36, 167-
187. [Crossref]
774. Violetta Wilk, Geoffrey Norman Soutar, Paul Harrigan. 2019.
Online brand advocacy (OBA): thedevelopment of a multiple item
scale. Journal of Product & Brand Management 29:4, 415-429.
[Crossref]
775. Francesco Pierri, Stefano Ceri. 2019. False News On Social
Media. ACM SIGMOD Record 48:2, 18-27. [Crossref]
776. Beata Kacperska, Mateusz Markowski, Maria Migodzińska. 2019.
Kreatywność językowa politykówpolskich, niemieckich i
amerykańskich na Twitterze w okresie kampanii wyborczych w 2018
roku – wybrane zagadnienia. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia
Librorum 2:29, 119-138. [Crossref]
777. Jonas C. L. Valente. 2019. Regulando desinformação e fake news:
um panorama internacional dasrespostas ao problema. Comunicação
pública :Vol.14 nº 27. . [Crossref]
778. Michael Guerzhoy, Lisa Zhang, Georgy Noarov. 2019. AI education
matters. AI Matters 5:3, 18-20. [Crossref]
779. M. Laeeq Khan, Ika Karlina Idris. 2019. Recognise misinformation
and verify before sharing: areasoned action and information
literacy perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology 38:12,
1194-1212. [Crossref]
780. Arash Barfar. 2019. Cognitive and affective responses to
political disinformation in Facebook.Computers in Human Behavior
101, 173-179. [Crossref]
781. Ofir Turel, Oren Gil-Or. 2019. To share or not to share? The
roles of false Facebook self, sex, andnarcissism in re-posting
self-image enhancing products. Personality and Individual
Differences 151, 109506. [Crossref]
782. Jennifer K. Boland, Jaime L. Anderson. 2019. The role of
personality psychopathology in socialnetwork site behaviors.
Personality and Individual Differences 151, 109517. [Crossref]
783. Ahmed Al-Rawi. 2019. Gatekeeping Fake News Discourses on
Mainstream Media Versus SocialMedia. Social Science Computer
Review 37:6, 687-704. [Crossref]
784. M. Connor Sullivan. 2019. Why librarians can’t fight fake news.
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51:4, 1146-1156.
[Crossref]
785. Simon Lindgren. 2019. Movement Mobilization in the Age of
Hashtag Activism: Examining theChallenge of Noise, Hate, and
Disengagement in the #MeToo Campaign. Policy & Internet 11:4,
418-438. [Crossref]
786. Aki Koivula, Markus Kaakinen, Atte Oksanen, Pekka Räsänen. 2019.
The Role of Political Activityin the Formation of Online Identity
Bubbles. Policy & Internet 11:4, 396-417. [Crossref]
787. Lisa K Hartley, Joel R Anderson, Anne Pedersen. 2019. Process
in the Community, Detain Offshoreor ‘Turn Back the Boats’?
Predicting Australian Asylum-seeker Policy Support from False
Beliefs, Prejudice and Political Ideology. Journal of Refugee
Studies 32:4, 562-582. [Crossref]
788. Yonghun Jang, Chang-Hyeon Park, Yeong-Seok Seo. 2019. Fake News
Analysis Modeling UsingQuote Retweet. Electronics 8:12, 1377.
[Crossref]
789. Kjell Hausken. 2019. A Game Theoretic Model of Adversaries and
Media Manipulation. Games 10:4, 48. [Crossref]
790. Wei Wang, Yuanhui Ma, Tao Wu, Yang Dai, Xingshu Chen, Lidia A.
Braunstein. 2019. Containingmisinformation spreading in temporal
social networks. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear
Science 29:12, 123131. [Crossref]
791. Milan Zafirovski. 2019. Exploitation in contemporary societies:
An exploratory comparative analysis.The Social Science Journal
56:4, 565-587. [Crossref]
792. Alberto Acerbi. 2019. Cognitive attraction and online
misinformation. Palgrave Communications 5:1. . [Crossref]
793. Peiyi Wang, Lixia Deng, Xiujun Wu. An Automated Fact Checking
System Using Deep LearningThrough Word Embedding 3246-3250.
[Crossref]
794. Prush Sa-nga-ngam, Theeraya Mayakul, Wasin Srisawat, Supaporn
Kiattisin. Fake news and onlinedisinformation. a perspectives of
Thai government officials 1-4. [Crossref]
795. Ammara Habib, Muhammad Zubair Asghar, Adil Khan, Anam Habib,
Aurangzeb Khan. 2019. Falseinformation detection in online
content and its role in decision making: a systematic literature
review. Social Network Analysis and Mining 9:1. . [Crossref]
796. Dorje C. Brody. 2019. Modelling election dynamics and the impact
of disinformation. Information Geometry 2:2, 209-230. [Crossref]
797. Abhishek Samantray, Paolo Pin. 2019. Credibility of climate
change denial in social media. Palgrave Communications 5:1. .
[Crossref]
798. J. Piet Hausberg, Kirsten Liere-Netheler, Sven Packmohr,
Stefanie Pakura, Kristin Vogelsang. 2019. Research streams on
digital transformation from a holistic business perspective: a
systematic literature review and citation network analysis.
Journal of Business Economics 89:8-9, 931-963. [Crossref]
799. Harun Güney Akgül. 2019. Fake News as a Tool of Populism in
Turkey: The Pastor Andrew BrunsonCase. Polish Political Science
Review 7:2, 32-51. [Crossref]
800. Ekatherina Zhukova. 2019. Image substitutes and visual fake
history: historical images of atrocityof the Ukrainian famine
1932–1933 on social media. Visual Communication 13,
147035721988867. [Crossref]
801. Teng-Chieh Huang, Razieh Nokhbeh Zaeem, K. Suzanne Barber. 2019.
It Is an Equal Failing to TrustEverybody and to Trust Nobody. ACM
Transactions on Internet Technology 19:4, 1-20. [Crossref]
802. Joshua Habgood-Coote. 2019. Stop talking about fake news!.
Inquiry 62:9-10, 1033-1065. [Crossref]
803. Rafael Angarita, Bruno Lefèvre, Shohreh Ahvar, Ehsan Ahvar,
Nikolaos Georgantas, Valérie Issarny.
2019. Universal Social Network Bus. ACM Transactions on Internet
Technology 19:3, 1-19. [Crossref]
804. Kevin C. Elliott. 2019. Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and
the Open Science Movement.Frontiers in Communication 4. .
[Crossref]
805. Kirsten J. Worden. 2019. Disengagement in the Digital Age: A
Virtue Ethical Approach to EpistemicSorting on Social Media. Moral
Philosophy and Politics 6:2, 235-259. [Crossref]
806. Alon Sela, Orit Milo, Eugene Kagan, Irad Ben-Gal. 2019.
Improving information spread by spreadinggroups. Online
Information Review 44:1, 24-42. [Crossref]
807. Abhijnan Chakraborty, Niloy Ganguly. 2019. Online Social
Networks to Foster Long-Term Welfare.GetMobile: Mobile Computing
and Communications 23:2, 5-8. [Crossref]
808. Edda Humprecht. 2019. Where ‘fake news’ flourishes: a comparison
across four Western democracies.Information, Communication &
Society 22:13, 1973-1988. [Crossref]
809. Glenda N. Cooper. Looking Back to Go Forward: The Ethics of
Journalism in a Social Media Age411-425. [Crossref]
810. Ricardo Martins, José João Almeida, Pedro Henriques, Paulo
Novais. 2019. A sentiment analysisapproach to increase authorship
identification. Expert Systems 6. . [Crossref]
811. Shagun Jhaver, Darren Scott Appling, Eric Gilbert, Amy Bruckman.
2019. "Did You Suspect thePost Would be Removed?". Proceedings of
the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3:CSCW, 1-33. [Crossref]
812. Shalini Talwar, Amandeep Dhir, Puneet Kaur, Nida Zafar, Melfi
Alrasheedy. 2019. Why do peopleshare fake news? Associations
between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing
behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51, 72-82.
[Crossref]
813. Robert A Thomson, Jerry Z Park, Diana Kendall. 2019. Religious
Conservatives and TV News: AreThey More Likely to be Religiously
Offended?. Social Problems 66:4, 626-644. [Crossref]
814. Mohammad Ahsan, Madhu Kumari, T.P. Sharma. 2019. Rumors
detection, verification andcontrolling mechanisms in online
social networks: A survey. Online Social Networks and Media 14,
100050. [Crossref]
815. Henrik Skaug Sætra. 2019. The tyranny of perceived opinion:
Freedom and information in the eraof big data. Technology in
Society 59, 101155. [Crossref]
816. Irfan Kareem, Shahid Mahmood Awan. Pakistani Media Fake News
Classification using MachineLearning Classifiers 1-6. [Crossref]
817. Peng Qi, Juan Cao, Tianyun Yang, Junbo Guo, Jintao Li. Exploiting
Multi-domain VisualInformation for Fake News Detection 518-527.
[Crossref]
818. Ahmed Abouzeid, Ole.Christoffer Granmo, Christian Webersik,
Morten Goodwin. Causality-based
Social Media Analysis for Normal Users Credibility Assessment in a
Political Crisis 3-14. [Crossref]
819. Colin C Barton. 2019. Critical Literacy in the Post-Truth Media
Landscape. Policy Futures in Education 17:8, 1024-1036.
[Crossref]
820. Belhakimi Mohamed Amine, Ahlem Drif, Silvia Giordano. Merging
deep learning model for fakenews detection 1-4. [Crossref]
821. Marc Edelman. 2019. Hollowed out Heartland, USA: How capital
sacrificed communities and pavedthe way for authoritarian
populism. Journal of Rural Studies 31. . [Crossref]
822. Rachel R. Mourão, Craig T. Robertson. 2019. Fake News as
Discursive Integration: An Analysis ofSites That Publish False,
Misleading, Hyperpartisan and Sensational Information. Journalism
Studies 20:14, 2077-2095. [Crossref]
823. Brian J. Bowe. 2019. Separating real from fake: Building news
literacy with the Frayer Model.Communication Teacher 33:4, 256-
261. [Crossref]
824. Scott R. Stroud. 2019. Pragmatist Media Ethics and the
Challenges of Fake News. Journal of Media Ethics 34:4, 178-192.
[Crossref]
825. Carolyn A. Lin. 2019. The Challenge of Information and
Communication Divides in the Age ofDisruptive Technology. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 63:4, 587-594. [Crossref]
826. Lyton Ncube. 2019. Digital Media, Fake News and Pro-Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance Cyber-Propaganda during the 2018
Zimbabwe Election. African Journalism Studies 40:4, 44-61.
[Crossref]
827. Cecilia Strand, Jakob Svensson. 2019. “Fake News” on Sexual
Minorities is “Old News”: A Studyof Digital Platforms as Spaces
for Challenging Inaccurate Reporting on Ugandan Sexual
Minorities. African Journalism Studies 40:4, 77-95. [Crossref]
828. Richard Gunther, Paul A. Beck, Erik C. Nisbet. 2019. “Fake news”
and the defection of 2012 Obamavoters in the 2016 presidential
election. Electoral Studies 61, 102030. [Crossref]
829. Satish Nambisan, Mike Wright, Maryann Feldman. 2019. The digital
transformation of innovationand entrepreneurship: Progress,
 challenges and key themes. Research Policy 48:8, 103773.
[Crossref]
830. Muhannad Alsyouf, Phillip Stokes, Dan Hur, Akin Amasyali,
Herbert Ruckle, Brian Hu. 2019. ‘Fake News’ in urology: evaluating
the accuracy of articles shared on social media in genitourinary
malignancies. BJU International 124:4, 701-706. [Crossref]
831. Stefanie K. Gratale, Angeline Sangalang, Erin K. Maloney, Joseph
N. Cappella. 2019. AttitudinalSpillover from Misleading Natural
Cigarette Marketing: An Experiment Examining Current and Former
Smokers’ Support for Tobacco Industry Regulation. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16:19, 3554.
[Crossref]
832. Anatoly P. Chudinov, Natalya N. Koshkarova, Natalia B.
Ruzhentseva. 2019. Linguistic Interpretationof Russian Political
Agenda Through Fake, Deepfake, Post-Truth. Journal of Siberian
Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 1840-1853.
[Crossref]
833. Pedro Faustini, Thiago Ferreira Covoes. Fake News Detection
Using One-Class Classification592-597. [Crossref]
834. Camila Leite da Silva, Lucas May Petry, Vinicius Marino Calvo
Torres de Freitas, Carina FriedrichDorneles. Mining Journals to
the Ground: An Exploratory Analysis of Newspaper Articles 78-83.
[Crossref]
835. Ralph Schroeder. 2019. Digital Media and the Entrenchment of
Right-Wing Populist Agendas. Social Media + Society 5:4,
205630511988532. [Crossref]
836. Darren L. Linvill, Brandon C. Boatwright, Will J. Grant, Patrick
L. Warren. 2019. “THE RUSSIANSARE HACKING MY BRAIN!” investigating
Russia's internet research agency twitter tactics during the 2016
United States presidential campaign. Computers in Human Behavior
99, 292-300. [Crossref]
837. Ethar Qawasmeh, Mais Tawalbeh, Malak Abdullah. Automatic
Identification of Fake News UsingDeep Learning 383-388.
[Crossref]
838. Anav Bedi, Nitin Pandey, Sunil Kumar Khatri. A Framework to
Identify and secure the Issues of FakeNews and Rumours in Social
Networking 70-73. [Crossref]
839. Dwi Fitri Brianna, Edi Surya Negara, Yesi Novaria Kunang.
Network Centralization AnalysisApproach in the Spread of Hoax
News on Social Media 303-308. [Crossref]
840. Natalie Jomini Stroud, Ashley Muddiman. 2019. Social Media
Engagement With Strategy- and IssueFramed Political News. Journal
of Communication 69:5, 443-466. [Crossref]
841. R Kelly Garrett, Jacob A Long, Min Seon Jeong. 2019. From
Partisan Media to Misperception: Affective Polarization as
Mediator. Journal of Communication 69:5, 490-512. [Crossref]
842. Paniagua, Rivelles, Sapena. 2019. Social Determinants of
Success: Social Media, CorporateGovernance and Revenue.
Sustainability 11:19, 5164. [Crossref]
843. Chen, Li, Yang, Cong, Li. 2019. Modeling of the Public Opinion
Polarization Process withthe Considerations of Individual
Heterogeneity and Dynamic Conformity. Mathematics 7:10, 917.
[Crossref]
844. Ethan Porter, Thomas J. Wood. False Alarm 81, . [Crossref]
845. Ján Mazúr, Mária T. Patakyová. 2019. Regulatory Approaches to
Facebook and Other SocialMedia Platforms: Towards Platforms
Design Accountability. Masaryk University Journal of Law and
Technology 13:2, 219. [Crossref]
846. Ajnesh Prasad. 2019. Denying Anthropogenic Climate Change: Or,
How Our Rejection of ObjectiveReality Gave Intellectual
Legitimacy to Fake News. Sociological Forum 44. . [Crossref]
847. Kristen Lane, Sidney J. Levy. Marketing in the Digital Age: A
Moveable Feast of Information 13-33. [Crossref]
848. Mona S Kleinberg, Richard R Lau. 2019. The Importance of
Political Knowledge for EffectiveCitizenship. Public Opinion
Quarterly 83:2, 338-362. [Crossref]
849. Jennifer M. Connolly, Joseph E. Uscinski, Casey A. Klofstad,
Jonathan P. West. 2019. Communicating to the Public in the Era of
Conspiracy Theory. Public Integrity 21:5, 469-476. [Crossref]
850. Michael Landon-Murray, Edin Mujkic, Brian Nussbaum. 2019.
Disinformation in ContemporaryU.S. Foreign Policy: Impacts and
Ethics in an Era of Fake News, Social Media, and Artificial
Intelligence. Public Integrity 21:5, 512-522. [Crossref]
851. Bonnie Stabile, Aubrey Grant, Hemant Purohit, Kelsey Harris.
2019. Sex, Lies, and Stereotypes:
Gendered Implications of Fake News for Women in Politics. Public
Integrity 21:5, 491-502. [Crossref]
852. Subin Sudhir, Anandakuttan B. Unnithan. 2019. Role of affect in
marketplace rumor propagation.Marketing Intelligence & Planning
37:6, 631-644. [Crossref]
853. Nora Kreyßig, Agnieszka Ewa Krautz. 2019. Lying and perception
of lies by bilingual speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:05,
1313-1329. [Crossref]
854. Alan F. Smeaton. Challenges Associated with Generative Forms of
Multimedia Content (KeynoteTalk) 1-3. [Crossref]
855. Indra Gamayanto, De Rosal Igantius Moses Setiadi, Muljono
Muljono, Sasono Wibowo, RizkaNugraha Pratikna, Arta Moro
Sundjaja, Clara Hetty, Devi Purnamasari. The Concept of “Anti-
Hoax Intelligence (CI1)” Inside Social Media using Ken Watanabe
& Johari Window Methods 528-535. [Crossref]
856. Adi Prasetyo, Bayu Dwi Septianto, Guruh Fajar Shidik, Ahmad
Zainul Fanani. Evaluation of FeatureExtraction TF-IDF in
Indonesian Hoax News Classification 1-6. [Crossref]
857. Ngo Van Long, Martin Richardson, Frank Stähler. 2019. Media,
fake news, and debunking. Economic Record 95:310, 312-324.
[Crossref]
858. Andrew Duffy. 2019. Narrative Matters: You do you: teens’
coconstruction of narrative, reality andidentity on social media.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health 24:3, 288-290. [Crossref]
859. Edson C. Tandoc. 2019. The facts of fake news: A research review.
Sociology Compass 13:9. . [Crossref]
860. Jonathan Intravia, Justin T. Pickett. 2019. Stereotyping Online?
Internet News, Social Media, andthe Racial Typification of Crime.
Sociological Forum 34:3, 616-642. [Crossref]
861. Jeremy Kepner, Kenjiro Cho, KC Claffy, Vijay Gadepally, Peter
Michaleas, Lauren Milechin.Hypersparse Neural Network Analysis of
Large-Scale Internet Traffic 1-11. [Crossref]
862. Daniel Vial, Vijay Subramanian. Local Non-Bayesian Social
Learning with Stubborn Agents *902-903. [Crossref]
863. Shivangi Singhal, Rajiv Ratn Shah, Tanmoy Chakraborty,
Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Shin'ichiSatoh. SpotFake: A Multi-modal
Framework for Fake News Detection 39-47. [Crossref]
864. Joseph Downing, Wasim Ahmed. 2019. #MacronLeaks as a “warning
shot” for European democracies:
challenges to election blackouts presented by social media and
election meddling during the 2017 French presidential election.
French Politics 17:3, 257-278. [Crossref]
865. Jan Philipp Rau, Sebastian Stier. 2019. Die Echokammer-
Hypothese: Fragmentierung derÖffentlichkeit und politische
Polarisierung durch digitale Medien?. Zeitschrift für
Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 13:3, 399-417. [Crossref]
866. R Kelly Garrett, Shannon Poulsen. 2019. Flagging Facebook
Falsehoods: Self-IdentifiedHumor Warnings Outperform Fact Checker
and Peer Warnings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
24:5, 240-258. [Crossref]
867. Lauren Lutzke, Caitlin Drummond, Paul Slovic, Joseph Árvai.
2019. Priming critical thinking: Simpleinterventions limit the
influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global
Environmental Change 58, 101964. [Crossref]
868. Sinan Aral, Dean Eckles. 2019. Protecting elections from social
media manipulation. Science 365:6456, 858-861. [Crossref]
869. Johan Farkas, Jannick Schou. Political Theory in Post-factual
Times 14-41. [Crossref]
870. Johan Farkas, Jannick Schou. Prophecies of Post-truth 45-67.
[Crossref]
871. María Celeste Wagner, Pablo J. Boczkowski. 2019. The Reception
of Fake News: The Interpretationsand Practices That Shape the
Consumption of Perceived Misinformation. Digital Journalism 7:7,
870-885. [Crossref]
872. Timothy Macafee. 2019. Biased into posting: interactions with
social media network political postsduring the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. Communication Research Reports 36:4, 326-
337. [Crossref]
873. Anouk de Regt, Matteo Montecchi, Sarah Lord Ferguson. 2019. A
false image of health: howfake news and pseudo-facts spread in
the health and beauty industry. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 29:2, 168-179. [Crossref]
874. Marco Battaglini, Eleonora Patacchini. 2019. Social Networks in
Policy Making. Annual Review of Economics 11:1, 473-494.
[Crossref]
875. Jonas Colliander. 2019. “This is fake news”: Investigating the
role of conformity to other users’ viewswhen commenting on and
spreading disinformation in social media. Computers in Human
Behavior 97, 202-215. [Crossref]
876. Maria Teresa Borges-Tiago, Flavio Tiago, Carla Cosme. 2019.
Exploring users' motivations toparticipate in viral communication
on social media. Journal of Business Research 101, 574-582.
[Crossref]
877. Songqian Li, Kun Ma, Xuewei Niu, Yufeng Wang, Ke Ji, Ziqiang Yu,
Zhenxiang Chen. Stacking-BasedEnsemble Learning on Low
Dimensional Features for Fake News Detection 2730-2735.
[Crossref]
878. Mattia Zago, Pantaleone Nespoli, Dimitrios Papamartzivanos,
Manuel Gil Perez, Felix Gomez Marmol,Georgios Kambourakis,
Gregorio Martinez Perez. 2019. Screening Out Social Bots
Interference: Are There Any Silver Bullets?. IEEE Communications
Magazine 57:8, 98-104. [Crossref]
879. Ana S Cardenal, Carlos Aguilar-Paredes, Camilo Cristancho,
Sílvia Majó-Vázquez. 2019. Echochambers in online news
consumption: Evidence from survey and navigation data in Spain.
European Journal of Communication 34:4, 360-376. [Crossref]
880. Arian Balouchestani, Mojtaba Mahdavi, Yeganeh Hallaj, Delaram
Javdani. SANUB: A new methodfor Sharing and Analyzing News Using
Blockchain 139-143. [Crossref]
881. Mohamed K. Elhadad, Kin Fun Li, Fayez Gebali. Fake News Detection
on Social Media: A SystematicSurvey 1-8. [Crossref]
882. Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Michael Simpson, Saravanan
Thirumuruganathan. 2019. Combating fakenews. Proceedings of the
VLDB Endowment 12:12, 1990-1993. [Crossref]
883. Thiago Dias Silva, Luciana Duarte Oliveira. 2019. El monopolio
de la verdad en la era de las FakeNews. Ratio Juris 14:28, 109-
126. [Crossref]
884. Emily K. Vraga, Melissa Tully. 2019. News literacy, social media
behaviors, and skepticism towardinformation on social media.
Information, Communication & Society 1, 1-17. [Crossref]
885. Marloes de Valk. 2019. What remains, un proyecto artístico que
trata sobre las campañas dedesinformación (re)utilizando
estrategias para retrasar la regulación industrial. Artnodes :24,
34. [Crossref]
886. Antino Kim, Patricia L. Moravec, Alan R. Dennis. 2019. Combating
Fake News on Social Mediawith Source Ratings: The Effects of User
and Expert Reputation Ratings. Journal of Management Information
Systems 36:3, 931-968. [Crossref]
887. Jengchung Victor Chen, Mahmoud Abdullah Elakhdary, Quang-An Ha.
2019. The Continuance Useof Social Network Sites for Political
Participation: Evidences from Arab Countries. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management 22:3, 156-178. [Crossref]
888. Edson C. Tandoc, Joy Jenkins, Stephanie Craft. 2019. Fake News
as a Critical Incident in Journalism.
Journalism Practice 13:6, 673-689. [Crossref]
889. Sebastián Valenzuela, Daniel Halpern, James E. Katz, Juan Pablo
Miranda. 2019. The Paradoxof Participation Versus Misinformation:
Social Media, Political Engagement, and the Spread of
Misinformation. Digital Journalism 7:6, 802-823. [Crossref]
890. Patricia G. Elmore, Julianne M. Coleman. 2019. Middle School
Students’ Analysis of Political Memesto Support Critical Media
Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 63:1, 29-40.
[Crossref]
891. Angela M. Kohnen, Gillian E. Mertens. 2019. “I'm Always Kind of
Double‐Checking”: Exploringthe Information‐Seeking Identities of
Expert Generalists. Reading Research Quarterly 54:3, 279-297.
[Crossref]
892. Ping Zhang, Zhifeng Bao, Yudong Niu, Yipeng Zhang, Songsong Mo,
Fei Geng, Zhiyong Peng. 2019. Proactive rumor control in online
networks. World Wide Web 22:4, 1799-1818. [Crossref]
893. Lorenzo Bizzi, Alice Labban. 2019. The double-edged impact of
social media on online trading: Opportunities, threats, and
recommendations for organizations. Business Horizons 62:4, 509-
519. [Crossref]
894. Luis Terán, José Mancera. 2019. Dynamic profiles using sentiment
analysis and twitter data for votingadvice applications.
Government Information Quarterly 36:3, 520-535. [Crossref]
895. Michail Batikas, Jörg Claussen, Christian Peukert. 2019. Follow
the money: Online piracy and selfregulation in the advertising
industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization 65,
121-151. [Crossref]
896. Chris Leeder. 2019. How college students evaluate and share
“fake news” stories. Library & Information Science Research 41:3,
100967. [Crossref]
897. Zhan Liu, Shaban Shabani, Nicole Glassey Balet, Maria Sokhn.
Detection of Satiric News on SocialMedia: Analysis of the
Phenomenon with a French Dataset 1-6. [Crossref]
898. Chi-Ying Chen, Zon-Ying Shae, Chien-Jen Chang, Kuan-Yuh Lin,
Shu-Mei Tan, Shao-LiangChang. A Trusting News Ecosystem Against
Fake News from Humanity and Technology Perspectives 132-137.
[Crossref]
899. Zonyin Shae, Jeffrey Tsai. AI Blockchain Platform for Trusting
News 1610-1619. [Crossref]
900. Rafael Angarita, Nikolaos Georgantas, Valerie Issarny. Social
Middleware for Civic Engagement1777-1786. [Crossref]
901. Fabio Martinelli, Francesco Mercaldo, Antonella Santone. Social
Network Polluting ContentsDetection through Deep Learning
Techniques 1-10. [Crossref]
902. Kyeong-Hwan Kim, Chang-Sung Jeong. Fake News Detection System
using Article Abstraction209-212. [Crossref]
903. Patrick Halbach, Laura Burbach, Johannes Nakayama, Nils
Plettenberg, Martina Ziefle, Andre CaleroValdez. Would I Lie to
You? How Users Evaluate Faked Online Content Depending on Its
Publication Type 56-64. [Crossref]
904. Fabio Giglietto, Laura Iannelli, Augusto Valeriani, Luca Rossi.
2019. ‘Fake news’ is the invention of aliar: How false information
circulates within the hybrid news system. Current Sociology 67:4,
625-642. [Crossref]
905. Jesper Tække. 2019. Acquisition of new communication media and
social (dis)connectivity. Current Sociology 67:4, 579-593.
[Crossref]
906. Tanya Notley, Michael Dezuanni. 2019. Advancing children’s news
media literacy: learning from thepractices and experiences of
young Australians. Media, Culture & Society 41:5, 689-707.
[Crossref]
907. Logan Molyneux. 2019. A Personalized Self-image: Gender and
Branding Practices AmongJournalists. Social Media + Society 5:3,
205630511987295. [Crossref]
908. Bryson R. Payne, Edward L. Mienie. 2019. The Impact of Cyber-
Physical Warfare on Global HumanSecurity. International Journal
of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism 9:3, 36-50. [Crossref]
909. Timothy G. Pollock, Kisha Lashley, Violina P. Rindova, Jung-Hoon
Han. 2019. Which of TheseThings Are Not Like the Others? Comparing
the Rational, Emotional, and Moral Aspects of
Reputation, Status, Celebrity, and Stigma. Academy of Management
Annals 13:2, 444-478. [Crossref]
910. Cristian Pop, Alexandru Popa. 2019. NewsCompare - A novel
application for detecting news influencein a country. SoftwareX
10, 100305. [Crossref]
911. Norbert Merkovity. 2019. A Possible Framework for Attention-
Based Politics. International Journal of E-Politics 10:2, 13-23.
[Crossref]
912. Adamkolo Mohammed Ibrahim. 2019. Theorizing the Journalism Model
of Disinformation and HateSpeech Propagation in a Nigerian
Democratic Context. International Journal of E-Politics 10:2, 60-
73. [Crossref]
913. Tal Samuel-Azran, Tsahi Hayat. 2019. Online news recommendations
credibility: The tie is mightierthan the source. Comunicar 27:60,
71-80. [Crossref]
914. Adnan Qayyum, Junaid Qadir, Muhammad Umar Janjua, Falak Sher.
2019. Using Blockchain toRein in the New Post-Truth World and
Check the Spread of Fake News. IT Professional 21:4, 16-24.
[Crossref]
915. Stella Ladi, Vasiliki Tsagkroni. 2019. Analysing Crisis
Parliamentary Discourse in Greece: Whom
Should We Blame?. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 57:4,
729-748. [Crossref]
916. Andrea Carson. The Rise of Collaborative Investigative
Journalism 1 144-170. [Crossref]
917. Xiaoyan Lu, Jianxi Gao, Boleslaw K. Szymanski. 2019. The
evolution of polarization in the legislativebranch of government.
Journal of The Royal Society Interface 16:156, 20190010.
[Crossref]
918. Kai Kaspar, Moritz Müller-Jensen. 2019. Information seeking
behavior on Facebook: The role ofcensorship endorsement and
personality. Current Psychology 31. . [Crossref]
919. Andreia Fernandes Silva. 2019. Porque é que as fake news se
transformaram em protagonistas dojornalismo contemporâneo?.
Comunicação pública :Vol.14 nº 26. . [Crossref]
920. Linda W. Lee, David Hannah, Ian P. McCarthy. 2019. Do your
employees think your slogan is “fakenews?” A framework for
understanding the impact of fake company slogans on employees.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 29:2, 199-208. [Crossref]
921. Nicholas Snell, Jeremy Straub, Brandon Stoick, Terry Traylor,
William Fleck. Assessing online mediareliability: trust, metrics
and assessment 8. [Crossref]
922. Herman Wasserman. Tabloidization of the News 277-289. [Crossref]
923. Alex Alexandrou. Cybercrime 61-66. [Crossref]
924. Joseph Firth, John Torous, Brendon Stubbs, Josh A. Firth,
Genevieve Z. Steiner, Lee Smith, MarioAlvarez‐Jimenez, John
Gleeson, Davy Vancampfort, Christopher J. Armitage, Jerome
Sarris. 2019. The “online brain”: how the Internet may be changing
our cognition. World Psychiatry 18:2, 119-129. [Crossref]
925. Zia Mehrabi, Simon Donner, Patricia Rios, Debarati Guha-Sapir,
Pedram Rowhani, Milind Kandlikar,Navin Ramankutty. 2019. Can we
 sustain success in reducing deaths to extreme weather in a hotter
world?. World Development Perspectives 14, 100107. [Crossref]
926. Alexander Lanoszka. 2019. Disinformation in international
politics. European Journal of International Security 4:2, 227-
248. [Crossref]
927. Xinzhe Wang, Xu Wu, Xiaqing Xie, Jin Xu. Hybrid Text Topic
Discovery Method for Multi-sourceInformation 445-452. [Crossref]
928. Camilo Onoda Luiz Caldas, Pedro Neris Luiz Caldas. 2019. Estado,
democracia e tecnologia: conflitospolíticos e vulnerabilidade no
contexto do big-data, das fake news e das shitstorms. Perspectivas
em Ciência da Informação 24:2, 196-220. [Crossref]
929. Pavel Korshunov, Sebastien Marcel. Vulnerability assessment and
detection of Deepfake videos 1-6. [Crossref]
930. Ascensión Andina-Díaz, José A. García-Martínez, Antonio
Parravano. 2019. The market for scoops: a dynamic approach. SERIEs
10:2, 175-206. [Crossref]
931. Bruce Mutsvairo, Saba Bebawi. 2019. Journalism Educators,
Regulatory Realities, and PedagogicalPredicaments of the “Fake
News” Era: A Comparative Perspective on the Middle East and
Africa. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 74:2, 143-157.
[Crossref]
932. Harikrishnan Bhaskaran, Harsh Mishra, Pradeep Nair. 2019.
Journalism Education in Post-TruthEra: Pedagogical Approaches
Based on Indian Journalism Students’ Perception of Fake News.
Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 74:2, 158-170.
[Crossref]
933. Kevin Hjortshøj O’Rourke. 2019. Economic History and
Contemporary Challenges to Globalization.The Journal of Economic
History 79:2, 356-382. [Crossref]
934. Angela Anthony, Richard Moulding. 2019. Breaking the news:
Belief in fake news and conspiracistbeliefs. Australian Journal
of Psychology 71:2, 154-162. [Crossref]
935. Moncef Belhadjali, Gary Whaley, Sami Abbasi. 2019. Assigning
Responsibility for Preventing theSpread of Misinformation Online:
Some Findings on Gender Differences. International Journal of
Innovation Education and Research 7:5, 195-201. [Crossref]
936. Karishma Sharma, Feng Qian, He Jiang, Natali Ruchansky, Ming
Zhang, Yan Liu. 2019. CombatingFake News. ACM Transactions on
Intelligent Systems and Technology 10:3, 1-42. [Crossref]
937. Adam J. Mills, Karen Robson. 2019. Brand management in the era
of fake news: narrative response asa strategy to insulate brand
value. Journal of Product & Brand Management 29:2, 159-167.
[Crossref]
938. Vinaya Manchaiah, Berth Danermark, Per Germundsson, Pierre
Ratinaud. Advantages of the SocialRepresentations Theory and
further directions 159-171. [Crossref]
939. Michail Vafeiadis, Denise S. Bortree, Christen Buckley, Pratiti
Diddi, Anli Xiao. 2019. Refuting fakenews on social media:
nonprofits, crisis response strategies and issue involvement.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 29:2, 209-222. [Crossref]
940. Cleber Pinelli Teixeira, Jônatas Castro dos Santos, Reisla
D’Almeida Rodrigues, Sean WolfgandMatsui Siqueira, Renata Araujo.
Chapter 14 Social Media and the Brazilian Politics: A Close Look
at the Different Perspectives and “The Brazil I Want” Initiative
203-219. [Crossref]
941. Daniel Belanche, Isabel Cenjor, Alfredo Pérez-Rueda. 2019.
Instagram Stories versus Facebook Wall: an advertising
effectiveness analysis. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC 23:1,
69-94. [Crossref]
942. Caitlin Candice Ferreira, Jeandri Robertson, Marnell Kirsten.
2019. The truth (as I see it):
philosophical considerations influencing a typology of fake news.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 29:2, 150-158. [Crossref]
943. Jeannette Paschen. 2019. Investigating the emotional appeal of
fake news using artificial intelligenceand human contributions.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 29:2, 223-233. [Crossref]
944. Jon Roozenbeek, Sander van der Linden. 2019. The fake news game:
actively inoculating against therisk of misinformation. Journal
of Risk Research 22:5, 570-580. [Crossref]
945. GREGORY J. MARTIN, JOSHUA McCRAIN. 2019. Local News and National
Politics. American Political Science Review 113:2, 372-384.
[Crossref]
946. Itzhak Yanovitzky, Matthew S Weber. 2019. News Media as
Knowledge Brokers in Public
Policymaking Processes. Communication Theory 29:2, 191-212.
[Crossref]
947. Florian Arendt, Mario Haim, Julia Beck. 2019. Fake News,
Warnhinweise und perzipierterWahrheitsgehalt: Zur
unterschiedlichen Anfälligkeit für Falschmeldungen in
Abhängigkeit von der politischen Orientierung. Publizistik 64:2,
181-204. [Crossref]
948. Yariv Tsfati, Nathan Walter. Credibility 1-5. [Crossref]
949. Dumisani Moyo, Admire Mare, Trust Matsilele. 2019. Analytics-
Driven Journalism? EditorialMetrics and the Reconfiguration of
Online News Production Practices in African Newsrooms". Digital
Journalism 7:4, 490-506. [Crossref]
950. Edward Rock Davis, Rachel Wilson, John Robert Evans. 2019. Media
neglect of Indigenous studentperformance in the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) 2001–2015. The Australian
Journal of Indigenous Education 8, 1-11. [Crossref]
951. Shanto Iyengar, Douglas S. Massey. 2019. Scientific
communication in a post-truth society.Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 116:16, 7656-7661. [Crossref]
952. Subin Sudhir, Anandakuttan B. Unnithan. 2019. Marketplace rumor
sharing among youngconsumers: the role of anxiety and arousal.
Young Consumers 20:1, 1-13. [Crossref]
953. Erik Brynjolfsson, Avinash Collis, Felix Eggers. 2019. Using
massive online choice experiments tomeasure changes in well-
being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:15,
7250-7255. [Crossref]
954. Jana Laura Egelhofer, Sophie Lecheler. 2019. Fake news as a two-
dimensional phenomenon: aframework and research agenda. Annals of
the International Communication Association 43:2, 97-116.
[Crossref]
955. Amy I. Nathanson, William P. Eveland. 2019. Parental mediation
during the U.S. 2016 presidentialelection campaign: How parents
criticized, restricted, and co-viewed news coverage.
Communication Monographs 86:2, 184-204. [Crossref]
956. Kieran Tranter. 2019. Die Buribunken as science fiction: the
self and informational existence. Griffith Law Review 28:2, 118-
136. [Crossref]
957. Frederik Hjorth, Rebecca Adler-Nissen. 2019. Ideological
Asymmetry in the Reach of Pro-RussianDigital Disinformation to
United States Audiences. Journal of Communication 69:2, 168-192.
[Crossref]
958. Veronika Villnow, Meike Rombach, Vera Bitsch. 2019. Examining
German Media Coverage of theRe-Evaluation of Glyphosate.
Sustainability 11:7, 1910. [Crossref]
959. Muhammad Tafriet, Putu W. Handayani, Ave Adriana Pinem. User
Motivation Analysis in SharingHoaxes In Indonesia 1-6. [Crossref]
960. A. V. Aleinikov, V. P. Miletskiy, N. P. Pimenov, A. I. Strebkov.
2019. The “Fake-News” Phenomenonand Transformation of Information
Strategies in the Digital Society. Scientific and Technical
Information Processing 46:2, 117-122. [Crossref]
961. Alireza Mansouri, Fattaneh Taghiyareh, Javad Hatami. Improving
Opinion Formation Models onSocial Media Through Emotions 6-11.
[Crossref]
962. Masahiro Yamamoto, Alyssa C. Morey. 2019. Incidental News
Exposure on Social Media: A CampaignCommunication Mediation
Approach. Social Media + Society 5:2, 205630511984361. [Crossref]
963. Raquel Recuero, Gabriela Zago, Felipe Soares. 2019. Using Social
Network Analysis and Social Capitalto Identify User Roles on
Polarized Political Conversations on Twitter. Social Media +
Society 5:2, 205630511984874. [Crossref]
964. Hunt Allcott, Matthew Gentzkow, Chuan Yu. 2019. Trends in the
diffusion of misinformation onsocial media. Research & Politics
6:2, 205316801984855. [Crossref]
965. R. Kelly Garrett. 2019. Social media’s contribution to political
misperceptions in U.S. Presidentialelections. PLOS ONE 14:3,
e0213500. [Crossref]
966. Lloyd S. Etheredge. Wisdom in History and Politics 721-753.
[Crossref]
967. Isabella Hansen, Darren J. Lim. 2019. Doxing democracy:
influencing elections via cyber voterinterference. Contemporary
Politics 25:2, 150-171. [Crossref]
968. Avi Goldfarb, Catherine Tucker. 2019. Digital Economics. Journal
of Economic Literature 57:1, 3-43. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
969. George Cairns, George Wright. 2019. Making scenario
interventions matter: Exploring issues of powerand rationality.
Futures & Foresight Science 1:1, e10. [Crossref]
970. Martina Temmerman, Renée Moernaut, Roel Coesemans, Jelle Mast.
2019. Post-truth and thepolitical: Constructions and distortions
in representing political facts. Discourse, Context & Media 27,
1-6. [Crossref]
971. G. Harianto, E. B. Setiawan, Y. R. Murti. 2019. Automated social
media account identification usingSimplified Brute Force. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series 1192, 012054. [Crossref]
972. Anjan Pal, Alton Y. K. Chua. Propagation Pattern as a Telltale
Sign of Fake News on Social Media269-273. [Crossref]
973. Alfred T.‐K. Ho. 2019. Donald F. Kettl , Can Government Earn Our
Trust? (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2017). 144 pp. $10.99 (e‐Book),
ISBN: 9781509522491. Roberts, Alasdair , Can Government Do
Anything Right? (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2018). 144 pp. $8.99
(e‐Book), ISBN: 9781509521517. Public Administration Review 79:2,
291-294. [Crossref]
974. Adam J. Mills, Christine Pitt, Sarah Lord Ferguson. 2019. The
Relationship between Fake NewsAnd Advertising. Journal of
Advertising Research 59:1, 3-8. [Crossref]
975. Timothy Sellnow, Adam Parrish, Lauren Semenas. 2019. From Hoax
as Crisis to Crisis as Hoax: FakeNews and Information Disorder as
Disruptions to the Discourse of Renewal. Journal of International
Crisis and Risk Communication Research 2:1, 121-142. [Crossref]
976. Eduard Fourie, Martin Terre Blanche. 2019. About accountants and
translators: reshaping communityengagement in South African
psychology. South African Journal of Psychology 49:1, 39-51.
[Crossref]
977. Vishal Bhavsar, Shuo Zhang, Dinesh Bhugra. 2019. Conceptualizing
globalization for mental healthresearch. International Journal of
Social Psychiatry 65:2, 87-91. [Crossref]
978. Rebecca S. Natow. 2019. Online Qualitative Data Sources for
Federal Regulatory Policy Studies.American Behavioral Scientist
63:3, 315-332. [Crossref]
979. Cecile H. Sam. 2019. Shaping Discourse Through Social Media:
Using Foucauldian DiscourseAnalysis to Explore the Narratives
 That Influence Educational Policy. American Behavioral Scientist
63:3, 333-350. [Crossref]
980. Jung-Yoon Yum, Se-Hoon Jeong. 2019. Predictors of fake news
exposure and sharing : personality,new media literacy, and
motives. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies
63:1, 7-45. [Crossref]
981. Peter Buneman, Wang-Chiew Tan. 2019. Data Provenance. ACM SIGMOD
Record 47:3, 5-16. [Crossref]
982. Pippa Norris, Ronald Inglehart. Cultural Backlash 17, .
[Crossref]
983. Craig J. Thompson. 2019. The ‘big data’ myth and the pitfalls
of ‘thick data’ opportunism: on theneed for a different ontology
of markets and consumption. Journal of Marketing Management 35:3-
4, 207-230. [Crossref]
984. Fabio Sabatini, Francesco Sarracino. 2019. Online Social
Networks and Trust. Social Indicators Research 142:1, 229-260.
[Crossref]
985. Megan A. Vendemia, Robert M. Bond, David C. DeAndrea. 2019. The
strategic presentation of usercomments affects how political
messages are evaluated on social media sites: Evidence for robust
effects across party lines. Computers in Human Behavior 91, 279-
289. [Crossref]
986. Oliver Kovacs. 2019. Big IFs in Productivity-Enhancing Industry
4.0. Social Sciences 8:2, 37. [Crossref]
987. Philip Mirowski. 2019. Hell Is Truth Seen Too Late. boundary 2
46:1, 1-53. [Crossref]
988. Eric Knight, Haridimos Tsoukas. 2019. When Fiction Trumps Truth:
What ‘post-truth’ and‘alternative facts’ mean for management
studies. Organization Studies 40:2, 183-197. [Crossref]
989. Cuihua Shen, Mona Kasra, Wenjing Pan, Grace A Bassett, Yining
Malloch, James F O’Brien. 2019. Fake images: The effects of
source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual
assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society 21:2,
438-463. [Crossref]
990. Nir Grinberg, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, Briony Swire-
Thompson, David Lazer. 2019. Fakenews on Twitter during the 2016
U.S. presidential election. Science 363:6425, 374-378. [Crossref]
991. Edward Hurcombe, Jean Burgess, Stephen Harrington. 2019. What’s
newsworthy about ‘social news’?Characteristics and potential of
an emerging genre. Journalism 31, 146488491879393. [Crossref]
992. . References 179-204. [Crossref]
993. Nurhan KAVAKLI. 2019. Yalan Haberle Mücadele ve İnternet
Teyit/Doğrulama Platformları. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi 6:1, 663-
682. [Crossref]
994. Nurhan KAVAKLI. 2019. ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİ ARASINDA İNTERNET
TEYİT/DOĞRULAMA PLATFORMLARININ KULLANIMI. Elektronik Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi 18:69, 398-411. [Crossref]
995. John Buschman. 2019. Good news, bad news, and fake news. Journal
of Documentation 75:1, 213-228. [Crossref]
996. LEE Jerome, Alex Elwick. 2019. Identifying an Educational
Response to the Prevent Policy: Student Perspectives on Learning
about Terrorism, Extremism and Radicalisation. British Journal of
Educational Studies 67:1, 97-114. [Crossref]
997. Emily Van Duyn, Jessica Collier. 2019. Priming and Fake News:
The Effects of Elite Discourse onEvaluations of News Media. Mass
Communication and Society 22:1, 29-48. [Crossref]
998. Óscar G. Luengo, Jaime Peláez-Berbell. 2019. Exploring the
accuracy of electoral polls duringcampaigns in 2016: only bad
press?. Contemporary Social Science 14:1, 43-53. [Crossref]
999. Joshua A. Braun, Jessica L. Eklund. 2019. Fake News, Real Money:
Ad Tech Platforms, Profit-DrivenHoaxes, and the Business of
Journalism. Digital Journalism 7:1, 1-21. [Crossref]
1000. Terry Flew. 2019. Digital communication, the crisis of trust,
and the post-global. Communication Research and Practice 5:1, 4-
22. [Crossref]
1001. Stanley Tsarwe, Admire Mare. 2019. Journalistic Framing of
Electoral Conflict in a Politically FragileSociety: A Comparative
Study of the Zimbabwean Weekly Press. African Journalism Studies
40:1, 18-35. [Crossref]
1002. Wonchan Choi, Maria Haigh. 2019. Analyzing divergent
methodologies for political fact checking: United States and South
Korea. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and
Technology 56:1, 627-628. [Crossref]
1003. Melissa M. Cyrill, Aftab Kamal Pasha. Diplomacy in the Internet
Age—Challenges and Opportunitiesfor the UAE 85-93. [Crossref]
1004. K. Anoop, Manjary P. Gangan, Deepak P, V. L. Lajish. Leveraging
Heterogeneous Data for FakeNews Detection 229-264. [Crossref]
1005. Tereza Kuldova. Popular Culture, Populism and the Figure of the
‘Criminal’ On the Rising Popular
Support of Outlaw Bikers and Anti-Establishment Resentment 233-
258. [Crossref]
1006. Michael Orlov, Marina Litvak. Using Behavior and Text Analysis
to Detect Propagandists andMisinformers on Twitter 67-74.
[Crossref]
1007. Ania Korsunska. The Spread and Mutation of Science
Misinformation 162-169. [Crossref]
1008. Nitin Verma, Kenneth R. Fleischmann, Kolina S. Koltai.
Understanding Online Trust andInformation Behavior Using
Demographics and Human Values 654-665. [Crossref]
1009. Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira, Carlota P. A. Carlos, Hugo Pintor, João
Caires, Julia Zanoni. Fake Newsand Social Networks: How Users
Interact with Fake Content 195-205. [Crossref]
1010. Monika Bednarek. The Language and News Values of ‘Most Highly
Shared’ News 157-188. [Crossref]
1011. Darren G. Lilleker. The Power of Visual Political Communication:
Pictorial Politics Through theLens of Communication Psychology
37-51. [Crossref]
1012. Kirsten Liere-Netheler, León Gilhaus, Kristin Vogelsang, Uwe
Hoppe. A Literature Review onApplication Areas of Social Media
Analytics 38-49. [Crossref]
1013. Adrian M. P. Braşoveanu, Răzvan Andonie. Semantic Fake News
Detection: A Machine LearningPerspective 656-667. [Crossref]
1014. Gautam Prakash, Ravinder Kumar Verma, P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan,
Arpan K. Kar. AuthenticatingFake News: An Empirical Study in India
339-350. [Crossref]
1015. Joshua Uyheng, Kathleen M. Carley. Characterizing Bot Networks
on Twitter: An Empirical Analysisof Contentious Issues in the
Asia-Pacific 153-162. [Crossref]
1016. Zahra Rajabi, Amarda Shehu, Hemant Purohit. User Behavior
Modelling for Fake InformationMitigation on Social Web 234-244.
[Crossref]
1017. Tahora H. Nazer, Matthew Davis, Mansooreh Karami, Leman Akoglu,
David Koelle, Huan Liu. BotDetection: Will Focusing on Recall
Cause Overall Performance Deterioration? 39-49. [Crossref]
1018. Daniel Halpern, Sebastián Valenzuela, James Katz, Juan Pablo
Miranda. From Belief in ConspiracyTheories to Trust in Others:
Which Factors Influence Exposure, Believing and Sharing Fake News
217-232. [Crossref]
1019. Margarita Bugueño, Gabriel Sepulveda, Marcelo Mendoza. An
Empirical Analysis of Rumor Detectionon Microblogs with Recurrent
Neural Networks 293-310. [Crossref]
1020. Hailu Xu, Liting Hu, Pinchao Liu, Boyuan Guan. Exploiting the
Spam Correlations in ScalableOnline Social Spam Detection 146-
160. [Crossref]
1021. Christian Scheibenzuber, Nicolae Nistor. Media Literacy Training
Against Fake News in OnlineMedia 688-691. [Crossref]
1022. Douglas Vitório, Ellen Souza, Adriano L. I. Oliveira. Evaluating
Active Learning Sampling Strategiesfor Opinion Mining in
Brazilian Politics Corpora 695-707. [Crossref]
1023. Andon Tchechmedjiev, Pavlos Fafalios, Katarina Boland, Malo
Gasquet, Matthäus Zloch, BenjaminZapilko, Stefan Dietze,
Konstantin Todorov. ClaimsKG: A Knowledge Graph of Fact-Checked
Claims 309-324. [Crossref]
1024. Guoyong Hu, Ye Ding, Shuhan Qi, Xuan Wang, Qing Liao. Multi-
depth Graph ConvolutionalNetworks for Fake News Detection 698-
710. [Crossref]
1025. Jairo L. Alves, Leila Weitzel, Paulo Quaresma, Carlos E.
Cardoso, Luan Cunha. Brazilian PresidentialElections in the Era
of Misinformation: A Machine Learning Approach to Analyse Fake
News 72-84. [Crossref]
1026. Hemant Purohit, Rahul Pandey. Intent Mining for the Good, Bad,
and Ugly Use of Social Web: Concepts, Methods, and Challenges 3-
18. [Crossref]
1027. Ugur Kursuncu, Manas Gaur, Usha Lokala, Krishnaprasad
Thirunarayan, Amit Sheth, I. Budak
Arpinar. Predictive Analysis on Twitter: Techniques and
Applications 67-104. [Crossref]
1028. André Calero Valdez, Martina Ziefle. Believability of News 469-
477. [Crossref]
1029. Matthew S. McGlone, Mark L. Knapp. Historical Perspectives on
the Study of Lying and Deception3-28. [Crossref]
1030. Marc-André Kaufhold, Christian Reuter. Cultural Violence and
Peace in Social Media 361-381. [Crossref]
1031. Ramian Fathi, Anne-Marie Brixy, Frank Fiedrich. Desinformationen
und Fake-News in der Lage: Virtual Operations Support Team (VOST)
und Digital Volunteers im Einsatz 211-235. [Crossref]
1032. Ritam Dutt, Ashok Deb, Emilio Ferrara. “Senator, We Sell Ads”:
Analysis of the 2016 RussianFacebook Ads Campaign 151-168.
[Crossref]
1033. Pavica Sheldon, Philipp A. Rauschnabel, James M. Honeycutt.
Social Media Lies and Rumors151-167. [Crossref]
1034. Jason C. Coronel, Daniel Colón Amill, Erin Drouin. Two-way
translation: Advancing knowledge ofpolitics and psychology via
the study of bilingual voters 39-65. [Crossref]
1035. Sangwon Lee, Michael Xenos. 2019. Social distraction? Social
media use and political knowledge intwo U.S. Presidential
elections. Computers in Human Behavior 90, 18-25. [Crossref]
1036. Shintaro Miura. 2019. Manipulated news model: Electoral
competition and mass media. Games and Economic Behavior 113, 306-
338. [Crossref]
1037. Ellen Middaugh. 2019. More Than Just Facts: Promoting Civic
Media Literacy in the Era of Outrage.Peabody Journal of Education
94:1, 17-31. [Crossref]
1038. Patrick J Kennedy, Andrea Prat. 2019. Where do people get their
news?*. Economic Policy 34:97, 5-47. [Crossref]
1039. Wenli Yang, Erfan Aghasian, Saurabh Garg, David Herbert, Leandro
Disiuta, Byeong Kang. 2019. ASurvey on Blockchain-Based Internet
Service Architecture: Requirements, Challenges, Trends, and
Future. IEEE Access 7, 75845-75872. [Crossref]
 1040. Muhammad Shahroz Nadeem, Virginia N. L. Franqueira, Xiaojun
Zhai, Fatih Kurugollu. 2019. A Survey of Deep Learning Solutions
for Multimedia Visual Content Analysis. IEEE Access 7, 84003-
84019. [Crossref]
1041. Axel Oehmichen, Kevin Hua, Julio Amador Diaz Lopez, Miguel
Molina-Solana, Juan GomezRomero, Yi-ke Guo. 2019. Not All Lies
Are Equal. A Study Into the Engineering of Political
Misinformation in the 2016 US Presidential Election. IEEE Access
7, 126305-126314. [Crossref]
1042. Tanzeela Jameel, Rukhsana Ali, Kamran Ahmed Malik. Social Media
as an Opinion Formulator: AStudy on Implications and Recent
Developments 1-6. [Crossref]
1043. Andrew Guess, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua Tucker. 2019. Less than
you think: Prevalence and predictorsof fake news dissemination on
Facebook. Science Advances 5:1, eaau4586. [Crossref]
1044. Vivian Lai, Chenhao Tan. On Human Predictions with Explanations
and Predictions of MachineLearning Models 29-38. [Crossref]
1045. Xinyi Zhou, Reza Zafarani, Kai Shu, Huan Liu. Fake News 836-837.
[Crossref]
1046. Minsuk Choi, Cheonbok Park, Soyoung Yang, Yonggyu Kim, Jaegul
Choo, Sungsoo Ray Hong.AILA 1-12. [Crossref]
1047. Abu Saleh Md Noman, Sanchari Das, Sameer Patil. Techies Against
Facebook 1-15. [Crossref]
1048. Armin Mertens, Franziska Pradel, Ayjeren Rozyjumayeva, Jens
Wäckerle. As the Tweet, so the Reply?193-201. [Crossref]
1049. Alireza Karduni, Isaac Cho, Ryan Wesslen, Sashank Santhanam,
Svitlana Volkova, Dustin L Arendt,Samira Shaikh, Wenwen Dou.
Vulnerable to misinformation? 312-323. [Crossref]
1050. Lukasz Porwol, Adegboyega Ojo. Harnessing Virtual Reality for
e-Participation 324-331. [Crossref] 1051. Kurt Wirth, Ericka
Menchen-Trevino, Ryan T. Moore. Bots By Topic 77-82. [Crossref]
1052. Michael A. Stefanone, Matthew Vollmer, Jessica M. Covert. In
News We Trust? 136-147. [Crossref]
1053. Janaína Ignácio de Morais, Hugo Queiroz Abonizio, Gabriel
Marques Tavares, André Azevedoda Fonseca, Sylvio Barbon. Deciding
among Fake, Satirical, Objective and Legitimate news 1-8.
[Crossref]
1054. Christian Siregar, Murty Magda Pane, Rusliansyah Anwar.
Pancasila, Ethos Respect, and Anti-hoaxeson Internet-based Social
Media 3-7. [Crossref]
1055. David Blanco-Herrero, Carlos Arcila Calderón. Spread and
reception of fake news promoting hatespeech against migrants and
refugees in social media 949-955. [Crossref]
1056. Iñaki Celaya, María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya, Concepción Naval,
Elena Arbués. The educationalpotential of the podcast 1040-1045.
[Crossref]
1057. Andres Algaba, David Ardia, Keven Bluteau, Samuel Borms, Kris
Boudt. 2019. Econometrics MeetsSentiment: An Overview of
Methodology and Applications. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1058. Elisa Long, Keith Chen, Ryne Rohla. 2019. Political Storms:
Tracking Hurricane Evacuation BehaviorUsing Smartphone Data. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1059. Felix Chopra, Ingar Haaland, Christopher Roth. 2019. Do People
Value More Informative News?.SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1060. Matthias Georg Will, Ingo Pies. 2019. Developing Advocacy
Strategies for Avoiding Discourse Failurethrough Moralizing and
Emotionalizing Campaigns. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1061. Pier Luigi Parcu. 2019. New Digital Threats to Media Pluralism
in the Information Age. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1062. Elliott Ash, Sergio Galletta. 2019. Partisan Media and Fiscal
Policy Choices: Evidence from U.S. CableNews Channels. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1063. Haemin Jee, Hans Lueders, Rachel Myrick. 2019. Towards a Unified
Concept of DemocraticBacksliding. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1064. Elliott Ash, Mikhail Poyker. 2019. Conservative News Media and
Criminal Justice: Evidence fromExposure to Fox News Channel. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1065. Michele Cantarella, Nicolò Fraccaroli, Roberto Geno Volpe. 2019.
Does Fake News Affect VotingBehaviour?. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1066. Niels Dalum Hansen, Kåre Mølbak, Ingemar Johansson Cox,
Christina Lioma. 2019. RelationshipBetween Media Coverage and
Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccination Uptake in Denmark:
Retrospective Study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 5:1,
e9544. [Crossref]
1067. Byeowool Kim, Yongik Yoon. 2019. Journalism Model Based on
Blockchain with Sharing Space.Symmetry 11:1, 19. [Crossref]
1068. Michael Etter, Davide Ravasi, Elanor Colleoni. 2019. Social
Media and the Formation ofOrganizational Reputation. Academy of
Management Review 44:1, 28-52. [Crossref]
1069. Craig R. McClain. 2019. Likes, comments, and shares of marine
organism imagery on Facebook.PeerJ 7, e6795. [Crossref]
1070. Paolo Gerbaudo, Federico Marogna, Chiara Alzetta. 2019. When
“Positive Posting” Attracts Voters: User Engagement and Emotions
in the 2017 UK Election Campaign on Facebook. Social Media +
Society 5:4, 205630511988169. [Crossref]
1071. David Godes, Dina Mayzlin, Odilon Camara, Doug Chung, Chris
Hydock, Richard Kotchmar, ClaireLim, Sarah Moshary, Neeru Paharia,
Nils Wernerfelt, Pinar Yildirim, Ali Yurukoglu, Lingling Zhang.
2019. Politics, Persuasion and Choice. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1072. Sergei Guriev, Nikita Melnikov, Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. 2019. 3G
Internet and Confidence inGovernment. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1073. Polly Wainwright, Houssain Kettani. An Analysis of Botnet Models
116-121. [Crossref]
1074. Curd Knüpfer. Die Medien in den USA 1-16. [Crossref]
1075. Ilan Manor. The Specter of Echo Chambers—Public Diplomacy in the
Age of Disinformation135-176. [Crossref]
1076. Avishai Green. 2019. Speaking Bullshit to Power: Populism and
the Rhetoric of Bullshit. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1077. Sopan Khosla, Niyati Chhaya, Shivam Jindal, Oindrila Saha,
Milind Srivastava. Do Events ChangeOpinions on Social Media?
Studying the 2016 US Presidential Debates 287-297. [Crossref]
1078. Delia Neuman, Mary Jean Tecce DeCarlo, Vera J. Lee, Stacey
Greenwell, Allen Grant. ExpandingInformation Literacy: The Roles
of Digital and Critical Literacies in Learning with Information
93-117. [Crossref]
1079. Laura Burbach, Patrick Halbach, Martina Ziefle, André Calero
Valdez. Bubble Trouble: StrategiesAgainst Filter Bubbles in Online
Social Networks 441-456. [Crossref]
1080. Iulian Vamanu. 2019. Fake News and Propaganda: A Critical
Discourse Research Perspective. Open Information Science 3:1, 197-
208. [Crossref]
1081. Bartosz W. Wojdynski, Matthew T. Binford, Brittany N. Jefferson.
2019. Looks Real, or ReallyFake? Warnings, Visual Attention and
Detection of False News Articles. Open Information Science 3:1,
166-180. [Crossref]
1082. Anna Cristina Brisola, Andréa Doyle. 2019. Critical Information
Literacy as a Path to Resist “FakeNews”: Understanding
Disinformation as the Root Problem. Open Information Science 3:1,
274-286. [Crossref]
1083. ALEXANDRE FERREIRA, TIAGO CARVALHO, FERNANDA ANDALÓ, ANDERSON
ROCHA. 2019. Counteracting the contemporaneous proliferation of
digital forgeries and fake news. Anais da Academia Brasileira de
Ciências 91:suppl 1. . [Crossref]
1084. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, Maria Petrova, Ruben Enikolopov. 2019.
Political Effects of the Internet andSocial Media. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
1085. Pritika Bahad, Preeti Saxena, Raj Kamal. 2019. Fake News
Detection using Bi-directional LSTM-
Recurrent Neural Network. Procedia Computer Science 165, 74-82.
[Crossref]
1086. Susannah B. F. Paletz, Brooke E. Auxier, Ewa M. Golonka.
Introduction 1-7. [Crossref]
1087. Susannah B. F. Paletz, Brooke E. Auxier, Ewa M. Golonka.
Motivation to Share 37-45. [Crossref]
1088. Susannah B. F. Paletz, Brooke E. Auxier, Ewa M. Golonka.
Reactions to the Message and Messenger15-36. [Crossref]
1089. Gad Allon, Kimon Drakopoulos, Vahideh Manshadi. 2019.
Information Inundation on Platforms andImplications. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1090. Dixie D. Massey. Texts and Tasks 78-99. [Crossref]
1091. Anjan Pal, Snehasish Banerjee. Understanding Online Falsehood
From the Perspective of SocialProblem 1-17. [Crossref]
1092. Thomas Dale. The Fundamental Roles of Technology in the Spread
of Fake News 122-137. [Crossref]
1093. Rosanna E. Guadagno, Karen Guttieri. Fake News and Information
Warfare 167-191. [Crossref]
1094. Benson Rajan. New Mythologies of Fake News 192-208. [Crossref]
1095. Stephanie Jean Tsang. News Credibility and Media Literacy in the
Digital Age 135-155. [Crossref] 1096. Chin-Chia Hsu, Amir Ajorlou,
Ali Jadbabaie. 2019. A Theory of Misinformation Spread on Social
Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1097. Ashley Stewart, Joshua Schuschke, Brendesha Tynes. Online
Racism: Adjustment and ProtectiveFactors Among Adolescents of
Color 501-513. [Crossref]
1098. Danilo Vassallo, Giacomo Bormetti, Fabrizio Lillo. 2019. A Tale
of Two Sentiment Scales: Disentangling Short-Run and Long-Run
Components in Multivariate Sentiment Dynamics. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
1099. Jorge Mejia, Jui Ramaprasad. 2019. Black Lies vs. White Lies:
Information Asymmetry and Bias inFact-Checking Platforms. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1100. Judit Bayer, Natalija Bitiukova, Petra Bard, Judit Szakács,
Alberto Alemanno, Erik Uszkiewicz. 2019. Disinformation and
Propaganda – Impact on the Functioning of the Rule of Law in the
EU and its Member States. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1101. Anjie Fang, Philip Habel, Iadh Ounis, Craig MacDonald. 2019.
Votes on Twitter: Assessing CandidatePreferences and Topics of
Discussion During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. SAGE Open
9:1, 215824401879165. [Crossref]
1102. Nicolas M. Anspach, Jay T. Jennings, Kevin Arceneaux. 2019. A
little bit of knowledge: Facebook’s
News Feed and self-perceptions of knowledge. Research & Politics
6:1, 205316801881618. [Crossref]
1103. Fatemeh Torabi Asr, Maite Taboada. 2019. Big Data and quality
data for fake news and misinformationdetection. Big Data & Society
6:1, 205395171984331. [Crossref]
1104. Yangqian Wang, Hao Han, Ye Ding, Xuan Wang, Qing Liao. Learning
Contextual Features withMulti-head Self-attention for Fake News
Detection 132-142. [Crossref]
1105. Stephanie M. Grant, Frank Douglas Hodge, Samantha C Seto. 2019.
Can a Deliberative MindsetPrompt Reduce Investors’ Reliance on
Fake News?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1106. Alexander Walker, Martin Harry Turpin, Ethan A. Meyers, Jennifer
A. Stolz, Jonathan Fugelsang,Derek Koehler. 2019. Controlling the
Narrative: An Initial Investigation Into Doublespeak. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1107. Agnieszka Rychwalska, Geoffrey Goodell, Magda Roszczynska-
Kurasinska. 2019. Data Managementfor Platform-Mediated Public
Services: Challenges and Best Practices. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
1108. Matthias Murawski, Julian Bühler, Martin Böckle, Jan Pawlowski,
Markus Bick. Social MediaInformation Literacy – What Does It Mean
and How Can We Measure It? 367-379. [Crossref]
1109. Carlos Rodríguez Pérez. 2019. No diga fake news, di
desinformación: una revisión sobre el fenómenode las noticias
falsas y sus implicaciones. Comunicación 20:40, 65-74. [Crossref]
1110. Junze Sun, Arthur J. H. C. Schram, Randolph Sloof. 2019. A Theory
on Media Bias and Elections.SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1111. Oğuzhan Taş, Tuğba Taş. 2018. Post-Hakikat Çağında Sosyal
Medyada Yalan Haber ve SuriyeliMülteciler Sorunu. Galatasaray
Üniversitesi İleti-ş-im Dergisi . [Crossref]
1112. Mayela Zambrano. 2018. Latinas for Trump Analysis of Processes
of Identification and the Use ofNarratives to Construct Subject-
Positions. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics
6:2, 197-214. [Crossref]
1113. Theodore Samore, Daniel M. T. Fessler, Colin Holbrook, Adam
Maxwell Sparks. 2018. Electoralfortunes reverse, mindsets do not.
PLOS ONE 13:12, e0208653. [Crossref]
1114. Robert Paluch, Xiaoyan Lu, Krzysztof Suchecki, Bolesław K.
Szymański, Janusz A. Hołyst. 2018. Fastand accurate detection of
spread source in large complex networks. Scientific Reports 8:1.
. [Crossref]
1115. Dipti P. Rana, Ms. Isha Agarwal, Ms. Anjali More. A Review of
Techniques to Combat The Perilof Fake News 1-7. [Crossref]
1116. Pragya Rawat, C. P. Gupta. User Response Based Information
Quality Assessment of Social MediaNews Posts 1-6. [Crossref]
1117. Michael Nekrasov, Danny Iland, Miriam Metzger, Lisa Parks,
Elizabeth Belding. 2018. A user-drivenfree speech application for
anonymous and verified online, public group discourse. Journal of
Internet Services and Applications 9:1. . [Crossref]
1118. Chang Woo-Young. 2018. Information/Media Selection and Bias
Mobilization : the Case of Taegeukgi rally. Korean Political
Science Review 52:5, 87-113. [Crossref]
1119. Chengcheng Shao, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Onur Varol, Kai-Cheng
Yang, Alessandro Flammini,Filippo Menczer. 2018. The spread of
 low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications 9:1.
. [Crossref]
1120. Saed Rezayi, Vimala Balakrishnan, Samira Arabnia, Hamid R
Arabnia. Fake News and Cyberbullyingin the Modern Era 7-12.
[Crossref]
1121. Muhammed O. Sayin, Tamer Basar. Dynamic Information Disclosure
for Deception * 1110-1117. [Crossref]
1122. A. Peters, E. Tartari, N. Lotfinejad, P. Parneix, D. Pittet.
2018. Fighting the good fight: the falloutof fake news in infection
prevention and why context matters. Journal of Hospital Infection
100:4, 365-370. [Crossref]
1123. Des Freedman. 2018. Populism and media policy failure. European
Journal of Communication 33:6, 604-618. [Crossref]
1124. Mica R. Endsley. 2018. Combating Information Attacks in the Age
of the Internet: New Challengesfor Cognitive Engineering. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
60:8, 1081-1094. [Crossref]
1125. Paulina Pasławska, Anna Popielska-Borys. 2018. Phenomenon of
Fake News. Social Communication 4:s1, 136-140. [Crossref]
1126. Ron Mahabir, Arie Croitoru, Andrew Crooks, Peggy Agouris,
Anthony Stefanidis. 2018. Newscoverage, digital activism, and
geographical saliency: A case study of refugee camps and
volunteered geographical information. PLOS ONE 13:11, e0206825.
[Crossref]
1127. Heidi Zimmerman, Aaron Eddens. 2018. Governing the liberal self
in a ‘post-truth’ era: science, classand the debate over GMOs.
Cultural Studies 32:6, 953-974. [Crossref]
1128. Lee Ann Kahlor, Z. Janet Yang, Ming-Ching Liang. 2018. Risky
Politics: Applying the Planned RiskInformation Seeking Model to
the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Mass Communication and
Society 21:6, 697-719. [Crossref]
1129. Jonathan Supovitz, Alan J. Daly, Miguel Del Fresno. 2018. The
Common Core debate on Twitterand the rise of the activist public.
Journal of Educational Change 19:4, 419-440. [Crossref]
1130. Péter Kiszl, János Fodor. 2018. The “Collage Effect” – Against
Filter Bubbles: InterdisciplinaryApproaches to Combating the
Pitfalls of Information Technology. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship 44:6, 753-761. [Crossref]
1131. Crystal Legacy, Dallas Rogers, Nicole Cook, Kristian Ruming.
2018. Beyond the post-political: ispublic participation in
Australian cities at a turning point?. Geographical Research 56:4,
353-357. [Crossref]
1132. Shan Jiang, Christo Wilson. 2018. Linguistic Signals under
Misinformation and Fact-Checking.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-
Computer Interaction 2:CSCW, 1-23. [Crossref]
1133. Mingkun Gao, Ziang Xiao, Karrie Karahalios, Wai-Tat Fu. 2018.
To Label or Not to Label. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction 2:CSCW, 1-16. [Crossref]
1134. Ronald E. Robertson, Shan Jiang, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland,
David Lazer, Christo Wilson.2018. Auditing Partisan Audience Bias
within Google Search. Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer
Interaction 2:CSCW, 1-22. [Crossref]
1135. Daniela Barberi, Eileen M. Ahlin, Donald C. Hummer, Shaun L.
Gabbidon. 2018. Are Non-U.S.Citizens Color-Blind? The
Racialization of Violent Crimes. Race and Justice 31,
215336871880834. [Crossref]
1136. Martin Hirst. The Political Economy of Fake News 78-100.
[Crossref]
1137. Kayla Keener. Affect, Aesthetics, and Attention 205-214.
[Crossref]
1138. Eugène Loos, Loredana Ivan, Donald Leu. 2018. “Save the Pacific
Northwest tree octopus”: a hoaxrevisited. Or. Information and
Learning Science 119:9/10, 514-528. [Crossref]
1139. Nicole M. Lee. 2018. Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for
research on digital media literacyeducation beyond the classroom.
Communication Education 67:4, 460-466. [Crossref]
1140. Étienne Brown. 2018. Propaganda, Misinformation, and the
Epistemic Value of Democracy. Critical Review 30:3-4, 194-218.
[Crossref]
1141. David Hunt, Derek Robertson, Allison Pow. 2018. The Counselor’s
Role in the Age of Social Mediaand Fake News. Journal of Creativity
in Mental Health 13:4, 405-417. [Crossref]
1142. Nnanyelugo Okoro, Nathan Oguche Emmanuel. 2018. Beyond
Misinformation: Survival Alternativesfor Nigerian Media in the
“Post-Truth” Era. African Journalism Studies 39:4, 67-90.
[Crossref]
1143. Jari Salo, Matti Mäntymäki, A.K.M. Najmul Islam. 2018. The dark
side of social media – and FiftyShades of Grey introduction to the
special issue: the dark side of social media. Internet Research
28:5, 1166-1168. [Crossref]
1144. Carola Binder, Alex Rodrigue. 2018. Household Informedness and
Long-Run Inflation Expectations: Experimental Evidence. Southern
Economic Journal 85:2, 580-598. [Crossref]
1145. Zaitul Iradah Mahid, Selvakumar Manickam, Shankar Karuppayah.
Fake News on Social Media: BriefReview on Detection Techniques 1-
5. [Crossref]
1146. Alton Y.K. Chua, Snehasish Banerjee. 2018. Intentions to trust
and share online health rumors: Anexperiment with medical
professionals. Computers in Human Behavior 87, 1-9. [Crossref]
1147. Paul Bleakley. 2018. Situationism and the recuperation of an
ideology in the era of Trump, fake newsand post-truth politics.
Capital & Class 42:3, 419-434. [Crossref]
1148. J. Jumanto. How to control hate speech and hoaxes: Character
language for character citizens 13-20. [Crossref]
1149. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Andrew Williams, Arne Hintz. 2018.
Introduction. Digital Journalism 6:8, 945-950. [Crossref]
1150. Neil Thurman, Robert G. Picard, Merja Myllylahti, Arne H.
Krumsvik. On Digital Distribution’sFailure to Solve Newspapers’
Existential Crisis 172-185. [Crossref]
1151. Ágnes Veszelszki. 2018. Like economy: What is the economic value
of likes?. Society and Economy 40:3, 417-429. [Crossref]
1152. Martin McKee, David Stuckler. 2018. Revisiting the Corporate and
Commercial Determinants ofHealth. American Journal of Public
Health 108:9, 1167-1170. [Crossref]
1153. Pavel Korshunov, Sebastien Marcel. Speaker Inconsistency
Detection in Tampered Video 2375-2379. [Crossref]
1154. Jason A. Parker, Daphne E. Whitmer, Valerie K. Sims. 2018.
Warnings for Hurricane Irma: Trust ofWarning Type and Perceptions
of Self-Efficacy and Susceptibility. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 62:1, 1368-1372.
[Crossref]
1155. Brett G. Johnson, Kimberly Kelling. 2018. Placing Facebook.
Journalism Practice 12:7, 817-833. [Crossref]
1156. Rens Vliegenthart, Mark Boukes. 2018. On the Street and/or on
Twitter?. Digital Journalism 6:7, 829-846. [Crossref]
1157. Timothy M. Hale, Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou, Shelia R. Cotten, Aneka
Khilnani. Introduction: Promisesand Perils of eHealth 1-10.
[Crossref]
1158. Wonseok (Eric) Jang, Erik P. Bucy, Janice Cho. 2018. Self-esteem
moderates the influence of selfpresentation style on Facebook
users’ sense of subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior
85, 190-199. [Crossref]
1159. Claudia Orellana-Rodriguez, Mark T. Keane. 2018. Attention to
news and its dissemination onTwitter: A survey. Computer Science
Review 29, 74-94. [Crossref]
1160. 2018. Call for papers: Exploring the dark side of social media.
European Management Journal 36:4, 439-440. [Crossref]
1161. Christian V. Baccarella, Timm F. Wagner, Jan H. Kietzmann, Ian
P. McCarthy. 2018. Social media?It's serious! Understanding the
dark side of social media. European Management Journal 36:4, 431-
438. [Crossref]
1162. Edson C Tandoc, Richard Ling, Oscar Westlund, Andrew Duffy,
Debbie Goh, Lim Zheng Wei. 2018. Audiences’ acts of authentication
in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media &
Society 20:8, 2745-2763. [Crossref]
1163. Gleb Tsipursky, Fabio Votta, James A. Mulick. 2018. A
psychological approach to promoting truthin politics: The pro-
truth pledge. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 6:2, 271-
290. [Crossref]
1164. Russell Torres, Natalie Gerhart, Arash Negahban. 2018.
Epistemology in the Era of Fake News. ACM SIGMIS Database: the
DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 49:3, 78-97.
[Crossref]
1165. Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, Jesse M. Shapiro. 2018. A note
on internet use and the 2016 U.S.
presidential election outcome. PLOS ONE 13:7, e0199571. [Crossref]
1166. Monika Kirner-Ludwig. Great pretenders 15-56. [Crossref]
1167. Silvia Sommariva, Cheryl Vamos, Alexios Mantzarlis, Lillie Uyên-
Loan Đào, Dinorah MartinezTyson. 2018. Spreading the (Fake) News:
Exploring Health Messages on Social Media and the Implications for
Health Professionals Using a Case Study. American Journal of Health
Education 49:4, 246-255. [Crossref]
1168. Melissa Leigh Gibson. 2018. Scaffolding Critical Questions:
Learning to Read the World in a MiddleSchool Civics Class in
Mexico. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 62:1, 25-34.
[Crossref]
1169. Ahmet Aker, Norbert Fuhr. 2018. The Information Retrieval Group
at the University of DuisburgEssen. Datenbank-Spektrum 18:2, 113-
119. [Crossref]
1170. S. Mo Jang, Tieming Geng, Jo-Yun Queenie Li, Ruofan Xia, Chin-
Tser Huang, Hwalbin Kim, JijunTang. 2018. A computational approach
for examining the roots and spreading patterns of fake news:
Evolution tree analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 84, 103-113.
[Crossref]
1171. Caroline L. Osborne. 2018. Programming to Promote Information
Literacy in the Era of Fake News.International Journal of Legal
Information 46:2, 101-109. [Crossref]
1172. Helena Webb, Menisha Patel. Can Video-based Qualitative Analysis
Help Us Understand Useralgorithm Interaction? . [Crossref]
1173. Bree McEwan, Christopher J. Carpenter, Jill E. Hopke. 2018.
Mediated Skewed Diffusion of IssuesInformation: A Theory. Social
Media + Society 4:3, 205630511880031. [Crossref]
1174. Alessandro Bucciol. 2018. False claims in politics: Evidence
from the US. Research in Economics 72:2, 196-210. [Crossref]
1175. Nik Rushdi Hassan, John Mingers, Bernd Stahl. 2018. Philosophy
and information systems: whereare we and where should we go?.
European Journal of Information Systems 27:3, 263-277. [Crossref]
1176. Santosh Vijaykumar, Glen Nowak, Itai Himelboim, Yan Jin. 2018.
Virtual Zika transmission after thefirst U.S. case: who said what
and how it spread on Twitter. American Journal of Infection Control
46:5, 549-557. [Crossref]
1177. Hyun Keun Lee, Yong Woon Kim. 2018. Public opinion by a poll
process: model study and Bayesianview. Journal of Statistical
Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2018:5, 053402. [Crossref]
1178. Marco L. Della Vedova, Eugenio Tacchini, Stefano Moret, Gabriele
Ballarin, Massimo DiPierro, Lucade Alfaro. Automatic Online Fake
News Detection Combining Content and Social Signals 272-279.
[Crossref]
1179. Chris J Vargo, Lei Guo, Michelle A Amazeen. 2018. The agenda-
setting power of fake news: A bigdata analysis of the online media
landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society 20:5, 2028-2049.
[Crossref]
1180. Theresa M. de los Santos, Elizabeth Smith, Mira Cohen. 2018.
Targeting Truth: How MuseumsCan Collaboratively Address Social
Issues. Journal of Museum Education 43:2, 104-113. [Crossref]
1181. Xiaotian Chen. 2018. Calling Out Fake News on Social Media: A
Comparison of Literature inLibrarianship and Journalism. Internet
Reference Services Quarterly 23:1-2, 1-13. [Crossref]
1182. Nicholas W. Jankowski. 2018. Researching Fake News: A Selective
Examination of Empirical Studies.Javnost - The Public 25:1-2, 248-
255. [Crossref]
1183. Dominic D. Wells. 2018. You All Made Dank Memes: Using Internet
Memes to Promote CriticalThinking. Journal of Political Science
Education 14:2, 240-248. [Crossref]
1184. Marina Bagić Babac, Vedran Podobnik. 2018. What social media
activities reveal about election results?The use of Facebook
during the 2015 general election campaign in Croatia. Information
Technology & People 31:2, 327-347. [Crossref]
1185. Andrew S. Ross, Damian J. Rivers. 2018. Discursive Deflection:
Accusation of “Fake News” and theSpread of Mis- and Disinformation
in the Tweets of President Trump. Social Media + Society 4:2,
205630511877601. [Crossref]
1186. Mike Hynes. 2018. Shining a brighter light into the digital
‘black box’: A call for stronger sociological(re)engagement with
digital technology design, development and adoption debates. Irish
Journal of Sociology 26:1, 94-126. [Crossref]
1187. David M. J. Lazer, Matthew A. Baum, Yochai Benkler, Adam J.
Berinsky, Kelly M. Greenhill,Filippo Menczer, Miriam J. Metzger,
Brendan Nyhan, Gordon Pennycook, David Rothschild, Michael
Schudson, Steven A. Sloman, Cass R. Sunstein, Emily A. Thorson,
Duncan J. Watts, Jonathan L. Zittrain. 2018. The science of fake
news. Science 359:6380, 1094-1096. [Crossref]
1188. Alberto ALEMANNO. 2018. How to Counter Fake News? A Taxonomy of
Anti-fake News
Approaches. European Journal of Risk Regulation 9:1, 1-5.
[Crossref]
1189. Gleb Tsipursky, Zachary Morford. 2018. Addressing Behaviors That
Lead to Sharing Fake News.Behavior and Social Issues 27, AA6-AA10.
[Crossref]
1190. Gleb Tsipursky, Fabio Votta, Kathryn M Roose. 2018. Fighting
Fake News and Post-Truth Politicswith Behavioral Science: The Pro-
Truth Pledge. Behavior and Social Issues 27, 47-70. [Crossref]
1191. Edson C. Tandoc, Zheng Wei Lim, Richard Ling. 2018. Defining
“Fake News”. Digital Journalism 6:2, 137-153. [Crossref]
1192. Leon Barkho. Haktology, Trump, and News Practices 77-98.
[Crossref]
1193. Leon Barkho. Haktology, Trump, and News Practices 77-98.
[Crossref]
1194. Nic DePaula, Kaja J. Fietkiewicz, Thomas J. Froehlich, A.J.
Million, Isabelle Dorsch, AylinIlhan. 2018. Challenges for social
media: Misinformation, free speech, civic engagement, and data
regulations. Proceedings of the Association for Information
Science and Technology 55:1, 665-668. [Crossref]
1195. Shannon M. Oltmann, Thomas J. Froehlich, Denise E. Agosto. 2018.
What do we do about “fakenews” and other forms of false
information: The roles of the organization of false information,
professional ethics and information literacy?. Proceedings of the
Association for Information Science and Technology 55:1, 719-721.
[Crossref]
1196. Jeff Z. Pan, Siyana Pavlova, Chenxi Li, Ningxi Li, Yangmei Li,
Jinshuo Liu. Content Based FakeNews Detection Using Knowledge
Graphs 669-683. [Crossref]
1197. Genevieve Gorrell, Ian Roberts, Mark A. Greenwood, Mehmet E.
Bakir, Benedetta Iavarone, KalinaBontcheva. Quantifying Media
Influence and Partisan Attention on Twitter During the UK EU
Referendum 274-290. [Crossref]
1198. Gerardo Ernesto Rolong Agudelo, Octavio José Salcedo Parra,
Julio Barón Velandia. Raising a Modelfor Fake News Detection Using
Machine Learning in Python 596-604. [Crossref]
1199. Severin Engelmann, Jens Grossklags, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos.
A Democracy Called Facebook?Participation as a Privacy Strategy
on Social Media 91-108. [Crossref]
1200. Seyed Mohssen Ghafari, Shahpar Yakhchi, Amin Beheshti, Mehmet
Orgun. Social Context-AwareTrust Prediction: Methods for
Identifying Fake News 161-177. [Crossref]
1201. Tooba Aamir, Hai Dong, Athman Bouguettaya. Stance and
Credibility Based Trust in Social-SensorCloud Services 178-189.
[Crossref]
1202. Shoko Kiyohara, Kazuhiro Maeshima, Diana Owen. Conclusion: The
Development of DigitalDemocracy in East Asia 189-205. [Crossref]
1203. Robert N. Spicer. Lies, Damn Lies, Alternative Facts, Fake News,
Propaganda, Pinocchios, Pants onFire, Disinformation,
Misinformation, Post-Truth, Data, and Statistics 1-31. [Crossref]
1204. Jamie Murphy, Ulrike Gretzel, Juho Pesonen, Anne-Liise Elorinne,
Kirsi Silvennoinen. HouseholdFood Waste, Tourism and Social Media:
A Research Agenda 228-239. [Crossref]
1205. Catherine Zuckert. Trump as a Machiavellian Prince? Reflections
on Corruption and AmericanConstitutionalism 73-87. [Crossref]
1206. Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Myiah J. Hutchens, Peter Muhlberger, Frank
J. Gonzalez, Alan J. Tomkins.Knowledge 45-60. [Crossref]
1207. Anna Sarmina. Fact-Checking as Defence Against Propaganda in the
Digital Age 193-202. [Crossref]
1208. Wenli Yang, Saurabh Garg, Ali Raza, David Herbert, Byeong Kang.
Blockchain: Trends and Future201-210. [Crossref]
1209. Marius Rohde Johannessen. Genres of Participation in Social
Networking Systems: A Study of the2017 Norwegian Parliamentary
Election 64-75. [Crossref]
1210. Silvio Barta, Uwe Stoklossa. Without Design, It’s just a Lump
of Gold — Future Developments inDesign as Luxury 317-346.
[Crossref]
1211. Bernd Zywietz. F wie Fake News – Phatische Falschmeldungen
zwischen Propaganda und Parodie97-131. [Crossref]
1212. Chitat Chan. 2018. Analysing social networks for social work
practice: A case study of the Facebookfan page of an online youth
outreach project. Children and Youth Services Review 85, 143-150.
[Crossref]
1213. Yoshiteru Ishida, Sanae Kuraya. 2018. Fake News and its
Credibility Evaluation by Dynamic Relational
Networks: A Bottom up Approach. Procedia Computer Science 126,
2228-2237. [Crossref]
1214. Costel-Sergiu Atodiresei, Alexandru Tănăselea, Adrian Iftene.
2018. Identifying Fake News and FakeUsers on Twitter. Procedia
Computer Science 126, 451-461. [Crossref]
1215. Ethan Porter, Thomas J. Wood, David Kirby. 2018. Sex
Trafficking, Russian Infiltration, BirthCertificates, and
Pedophilia: A Survey Experiment Correcting Fake News. Journal of
Experimental Political Science 5:2, 159-164. [Crossref]
1216. Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, Jie Chen. Industrial Structure
and Political Outcomes: The Caseof the 2016 US Presidential
Election 333-440. [Crossref]
1217. Chengcheng Shao, Pik-Mai Hui, Pengshuai Cui, Xinwen Jiang,
Yuxing Peng. 2018. Tracking andCharacterizing the Competition of
Fact Checking and Misinformation: Case Studies. IEEE Access 6,
75327-75341. [Crossref]
1218. Michael P. Kenning, Ryan Kelly, Simon L. Jones. Supporting
Credibility Assessment of News inSocial Media using Star Ratings
and Alternate Sources 1-6. [Crossref]
1219. Ronald E. Robertson, David Lazer, Christo Wilson. Auditing the
Personalization and Compositionof Politically-Related Search
Engine Results Pages 955-965. [Crossref]
1220. Mainul Quraishi, Pavlos Fafalios, Eelco Herder. Viewpoint
Discovery and Understanding in SocialNetworks 47-56. [Crossref]
1221. Xi Niu, Wlodek Zadrozny, Kazjon Grace, Weimao Ke. Computational
Surprise in InformationRetrieval 1427-1429. [Crossref]
1222. Kevin Koidl, Owen Conlan, Wessel Reijers, Mark Farrell, Melissa
Hoover. The BigFoot Initiative120-127. [Crossref]
1223. Yaqing Wang, Fenglong Ma, Zhiwei Jin, Ye Yuan, Guangxu Xun,
Kishlay Jha, Lu Su, Jing Gao.EANN 849-857. [Crossref]
1224. Mary Jane C. Samonte. Polarity Analysis of Editorial Articles
towards Fake News Detection 108-112. [Crossref]
1225. Md Momen Bhuiyan, Kexin Zhang, Kelsey Vick, Michael A. Horning,
Tanushree Mitra. FeedReflect205-208. [Crossref]
1226. Xunru Che, Danaë Metaxa-Kakavouli, Jeffrey T. Hancock. Fake News
in the News 289-292. [Crossref]
1227. Giulio Angiani, Gaudioso Junior Balba, Paolo Fornacciari,
Gianfranco Lombardo, Monica Mordonini,Michele Tomaiuolo. Image-
Based Hoax Detection 159-164. [Crossref]
1228. Carlo Gabriel Porto Bellini, Vishal Shah. 2018. Organizations
in an (Anti-)Information Age. BAR Brazilian Administration Review
15:3. . [Crossref]
1229. Vivien Mantei, Joachim Griesbaum, Thomas Mandl. 2018. Fostering
Information Literacy on theWeb: Results of a Game-Based Learning
Scenario. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology 8:12, 861-867. [Crossref]
1230. Michail Batikas, JJrg Claussen, Christian Peukert. 2018. Follow
the Money: Online Piracy and SelfRegulation in the Advertising
Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1231. Anil R Doshi, Sharat Raghavan, Rebecca Weiss, Eric Petitt. 2018.
The Impact of the Supply of FakeNews on Consumer Behavior During
the 2016 US Election. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1232. Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, Jie Chen. 2018. Industrial
Structure and Party Competition in anAge of Hunger Games: Donald
Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
1233. Hendrik Bruns. 2018. Does Proclaimed Doubt in Media Spill Over
to Doubt in Science? A Laboratory
Experiment in the Context of Climate Change. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
1234. Bertin Martens, Luis Aguiar, Estrella GGmez, Frank Mueller-
Langer. 2018. The DigitalTransformation of News Media and the Rise
 of Disinformation and Fake News. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1235. Lesley Chiou, Catherine E. Tucker. 2018. Fake News and
Advertising on Social Media: A Study ofthe Anti-Vaccination
Movement. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1236. Cuihua Shen, Mona Kasra, Wenjing Pan, Grace Benefield, Yining
Malloch, James O'Brien. 2018. FakeImages: The Effects of Source,
Intermediary, and Digital Media Literacy on Contextual Assessment
of Image Credibility Online. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1237. Chris Tenove, Jordan Buffie, Spencer McKay, David Moscrop. 2018.
Digital Threats to DemocraticElections: How Foreign Actors Use
Digital Techniques to Undermine Democracy. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
1238. Shuting Wang, Min-Seok Pang, Paul A. Pavlou. 2018. 'Cure or
Poison?' Identity Verification and theSpread of Fake News on Social
Media. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1239. Yong Suk Lee. 2018. Social Media and Rigid Beliefs: Evidence
from Impeachment of the President.SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1240. Geyu Yang. 2018. Opinion Manipulation and Disagreement in Social
Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1241. Patricia Moravec, Antino Kim, Alan R. Dennis, Randall Minas.
2018. Do You Really Know If It’sTrue? How Asking Users to Rate
Stories Affects Belief in Fake News on Social Media. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1242. Chandan Kumar Jha, Oasis Kodila-Tedika. 2018. Does Social Media
Promote Democracy? SomeEmpirical Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
1243. Gregory D. Saxton. 2018. Social Media, Accounting Information
Networks, and MarketReaction: The Effects of Firm-to-Investor,
Stakeholder-to-Investor, and Investor-to-Investor Twitter
Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1244. Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg. 2018. The Ocean of Possible Truth.
Drivers and Consequences ofNews Accuracy Judgements Online. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1245. Ron Mahabir, Arie Croitoru, Andrew Crooks, Peggy Agouris,
Anthony Stefanidis. 2018. NewsCoverage, Digital Activism, and
Geographical Saliency: A Case Study of Refugee Camps and
Volunteered Geographical Information. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1246. Sangjun Yea. 2018. Persuasion under the Influence of Fake News.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1247. Hunt Allcott, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer, Matthew Gentzkow.
2018. The Welfare Effects ofSocial Media. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
1248. Roberto Mosquera, Mofioluwasademi Odunowo, Trent McNamara,
Xiongfei Guo, Ragan Petrie.2018. The Economic Effects of Facebook.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1249. Rachel RJ Kalf, Amr Makady, Renske MT ten Ham, Kim Meijboom, Wim
G Goettsch. 2018. Use ofSocial Media in the Assessment of Relative
Effectiveness: Explorative Review With Examples From Oncology.
JMIR Cancer 4:1, e11. [Crossref]
1250. Chad E. Cook, Neil E. O'Connell, Toby Hall, Steven Z. George,
Gwendolen Jull, Alexis A. Wright,Enrique Lluch Girbés, Jeremy
Lewis, Mark Hancock. 2018. Benefits and Threats to Using Social
Media for Presenting and Implementing Evidence. Journal of
Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 48:1, 3-7. [Crossref]
1251. Mira Vidaković. 2018. Web 2.0, social media and the new paradigm
of information media. Kultura :160, 305-327. [Crossref]
1252. Mathieu-Robert Sauvé. 2018. Être (bien) informé, c’est être
libre !. Documentation et bibliothèques 64:4, 12. [Crossref]
1253. Matteo Gamalerio, Mario Luca, Max Viskanic. 2018. Finding the
Warmth of Other Suns? RefugeeReception, Extreme Votes and Hate
Crimes. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1254. Hedi Pudjo Santosa, Nurul Hasfi, Triyono Lukmantoro. 2018.
Digital Media Unequality During the2014th Indonesian Presidential
Election. E3S Web of Conferences 73, 14006. [Crossref]
1255. Rouli Manalu, Tandiyo Pradekso, Djoko Setyabudi. 2018. The from
News Bearer to Extreme SpeechPropagator: Analysis of Shifting
Practice in Production and Distribution of News on the Internet.
E3S Web of Conferences 73, 13011. [Crossref]
1256. Kevin Click, Cory Tondreau, Jannah Fusenig, Jordan Hutchings,
Jordan Osejo, Neil Schwartz. 2018. Truth-Detection in News Stories
Presented with Correspondent Images. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1257. Shimon Kogan, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Marina Niessner. 2018. Fake
News: Evidence from FinancialMarkets. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1258. Liang Chen, Xiaohui Wang, Tai-Quan Peng. 2018. Nature and
Diffusion of Gynecologic Cancer–Related Misinformation on Social
Media: Analysis of Tweets. Journal of Medical Internet Research
20:10, e11515. [Crossref]
1259. Hyelim Oh, Tuan Q. Phan, Khim Yong Goh. 2018. Are You What You
Tweet? The Impact ofSentiment on Digital News Consumption and
Social Media Sharing. SSRN Electronic Journal 29. . [Crossref]
1260. Andrea Robbett, Peter Hans Matthews. 2018. Partisan bias and
expressive voting. Journal of Public Economics 157, 107-120.
[Crossref]
1261. Anita Rao. 2018. Deceptive Claims using Fake News Marketing: The
Impact on Consumers. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1262. Dustin Tingley, Gernot Wagner. 2017. Solar geoengineering and
the chemtrails conspiracy on socialmedia. Palgrave Communications
3:1. . [Crossref]
1263. Richard Graham. 2017. Google and advertising: digital capitalism
in the context of Post-Fordism, thereification of language, and
the rise of fake news. Palgrave Communications 3:1. . [Crossref]
1264. Philogene Kyle Dimpas, Royce Vincent Po, Mary Jane Sabellano.
Filipino and english clickbaitdetection using a long short term
memory recurrent neural network 276-280. [Crossref]
1265. Alphia Possamai-Inesedy, Alan Nixon. 2017. A place to stand:
Digital sociology and the Archimedeaneffect. Journal of Sociology
53:4, 865-884. [Crossref]
1266. Gary King, Benjamin Schneer, Ariel White. 2017. How the news
media activate public expressionand influence national agendas.
Science 358:6364, 776-780. [Crossref]
1267. Ryan Kendall. 2017. Aligning Democracy: A Comment on Bruno S.
Frey’s “Proposals for a Democracyof the Future”. Homo Oeconomicus
34:2-3, 243-251. [Crossref]
1268. Irvan Santoso, Immanuel Yohansen, Nealson, Harco Leslie Hendric
Spits Warnars, Kiyota Hashimoto.
Early investigation of proposed hoax detection for decreasing hoax
in social media 175-179. [Crossref]
1269. Ali Ibrahim, Ermatita, Saparudin, Zefta Adetya. Analysis of
weakness of data validation from socialCRM 1-5. [Crossref]
1270. Nir Kshetri, Jeffrey Voas. 2017. The Economics of “Fake News”.
IT Professional 19:6, 8-12. [Crossref]
1271. Jonas De keersmaecker, Arne Roets. 2017. ‘Fake news’: Incorrect,
but hard to correct. The role ofcognitive ability on the impact
of false information on social impressions. Intelligence 65, 107-
110. [Crossref]
1272. Ian Goldin. 2017. The second Renaissance. Nature 550:7676, 327-
329. [Crossref]
1273. Stefan Stieglitz, Milad Mirbabaie, Jennifer Fromm. 2017.
Understanding Sense-Making on SocialMedia During Crises.
International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response
and Management 9:4, 49-69. [Crossref]
1274. Dominic Spohr. 2017. Fake news and ideological polarization.
Business Information Review 34:3, 150-160. [Crossref]
1275. 2017. Promoting health in a post-truth world. Health Promotion
International 32:4, 599-602. [Crossref]
1276. Youjung Jun, Rachel Meng, Gita Venkataramani Johar. 2017.
Perceived social presence reduces factchecking. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 114:23, 5976-5981. [Crossref]
1277. Dan M. Kahan. 2017. Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the
Logic of Identity-ProtectiveCognition. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1278. Maxim Ananyev, Maria Petrova. 2017. Information and
Communication Technologies, Protests, andCensorship. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1279. Antino Kim. 2017. Says Who?: How News Presentation Format
Influences Perceived Believabilityand the Engagement Level of
Social Media Users. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1280. Julia Cage. 2017. Media Competition, Information Provision and
Political Participation: Evidencefrom French Local Newspapers and
Elections, 1944-2014. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1281. Yiangos Papanastasiou. 2017. Fake News Propagation and
Detection: A Sequential Model. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1282. Dan M. Kahan. 2017. Misinformation and Identity-Protective
Cognition. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1283. Ozan Candogan, Kimon Drakopoulos. 2017. Optimal Signaling of
Content Accuracy: Likes vs. FakeNews. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1284. Lucas de Lima Carvalho. 2017. The Case Against Fake News
Gatekeeping by Social Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
1285. Danaa Metaxa-Kakavouli, Nicolls Torres-Echeverry. 2017.
Google's Role in Spreading Fake Newsand Misinformation. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1286. Evan D. Sadler. 2017. False Information and Disagreement in
Social Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1287. Antino Kim, Patricia Moravec, Alan R. Dennis. 2017. Behind the
Stars: The Effects of News SourceRatings on Fake News in Social
Media. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1288. Luis R. Martinez. 2017. How Much Should We Trust the Dictator's
GDP Estimates?. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1289. Miruna Craciunescu. 2017. Chassé croisé Lavocat/Ginzburg. Sens
public . [Crossref]
1290. Nitin Verma, Kenneth R. Fleischmann, Kolina S. Koltai. 2017.
Human values and trust in scientificjournals, the mainstream media
and fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information
Science and Technology 54:1, 426-435. [Crossref]
1291. Fabrizio Germano, Francesco Sobbrio. 2016. Opinion Dynamics via
Search Engines (and OtherAlgorithmic Gatekeepers). SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
1292. Shintaro Miura. 2015. Manipulated News Model: Electoral
Competition and Mass Media. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
1293. Evan D. Sadler. 2015. Diffusion Games. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
1294. Markus Baldauf, Joshua Mollner. 2015. Fast Traders Make a Quick
Buck: The Role of Speed inLiquidity Provision. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
1295. Russell Golman, George F. Loewenstein. 2012. Curiosity,
Information Gaps, and the Utility ofKnowledge. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
1296. Christine Yunn-Yu Sun, Steve Goschnick. Formation and Control
of Identity 286-323. [Crossref]