The SciFeye Index (Version 0.0)
The Index is broken up into four sections: Accuracy, Language, Accessibility, and Presentation. Under each section are headings relating to aspects that are relevant when considering how scientific articles are portrayed in the news and media. Below is a general outline for assessing what you are reading, however a more detailed Index is provided in PDF format at the bottom. The description and clarification for each of the criteria can be found in the SciFeye Index Companion below in PDF format. The SciFeye Index Companion is the accompanying file the SciFeye Reviewing Team uses to review news articles. The Index is actively updated to ensure the best evaluation we can provide. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, especially regarding any aspects of the Index or any suggestions for additions to the Index, please reach out to us on our Contact page.
|
|
Title:
Does the title contain clickbait attributes such as a listicle, cliffhanger, a curiosity gap? Does the title provoke emotions, challenge the reader's ego, defy convention or induce fear? Does the title accurately represent the original article or topic at hand? Or does the title take a different stance for the article, emphasize a minor point from the article, contain little information about the article, overstate claims or understate claims? Objectiveness:
Does the author of the news story inject their personal opinion? Does the author or reporter of the news story have a conflict of interest? Are there multiple perspectives provided? If so, are these alternative viewpoints of quality? Is there precedence given to a viewpoint? Claims and Statements:
Does the news story accurately describe the research article's intent? Does the news story accurately describe the research article's results or claims? Are independent sources used? Are there sources used from outside the research article of interest? Are there unjustifiable critiques or unsourced casual statements? Is what is known and unknown stated? Are there gaps or leaps in reasoning? Are there false or misleading claims made? Is appropriate context given to the article's results, claims, or statements? Is there confusion between correlation and causation? Is there cherry picking of results for a narrative? Are there any logical fallacies such as straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, appeal to fear or naturalistic fallacy? Claims and Statements:
Does the news story accurately describe the research article's intent? Does the news story accurately describe the research article's results or claims? Is the original research article from a reputable source or journal? Reporting:
Does the reporting accurately represent scientific literature? Does the reporting accurately represent the scientific process? Is the reporting simply an advertisement or marketing strategy?
Tone:
Is there fear mongering? Is there sensationalist language? Are there unjustifiable statements regarding certainty or uncertainty? Is there exaggeration of the research? Is there minimization of the research? Is there incivility or impoliteness? Is the news story emotionally charged? Grammar:
Is there unjustifiable use of punctuation such as exclamation or doubled punctuation? (i.e. ?? or !!) Is there incorrect grammar? Is there unjustifiable use of colloquialisms or slang? Is there unjustifiable use of humour? Vocabulary:
Is there a wide or varied vocabulary not suitable for the target audience? Varied vocabulary with intent to mislead? Is there unexplained jargon? Unexplained jargon with intent to mislead?
Author:
Is there a means of contact with the author? Is there a biography, description, or details available? Are other articles written by the author publicly available? Sources:
Are independent sources listed or clearly stated? Are the sources publicly available? Is the original research article(s) publicly available? Is a link to the original research article present and clearly visible?
Images:
Is an image included in a positive or negative connotation? Advertisements:
Is there an overwhelming amount of advertisements? Does the news story contain sponsored content? Is the sponsored content related to the topic at hand? Is there aggressive advertisement use such as pop-ups? Do advertisement domains promote false products? Advertisements:
Is there an overwhelming amount of social media prompts? Is there aggressive use of social media prompts? Highlighted Sections:
Do highlighted sections add depth to the story or just dramatic effect? Are any highlighted sections taken out of context in a misleading manner? |
Criteria described in the SciFeye Index are taken directly or adapted from the Credibility Coalition and their associated publication:
Amy Zhang, Aditya Ranganathan, Sarah Emlen Metz, Scott Appling, Connie Moon Sehat, Norman Gilmore, Nick B. Adams, Emmanuel Vincent, Jennifer 8. Lee, Martin Robbins, Ed Bice, Sandro Hawke, and David Karger. A Structured Response to Misinformation: Defining and Annotating Credibility Indicators in News Articles. The Web Conference, April 2018.
Amy Zhang, Aditya Ranganathan, Sarah Emlen Metz, Scott Appling, Connie Moon Sehat, Norman Gilmore, Nick B. Adams, Emmanuel Vincent, Jennifer 8. Lee, Martin Robbins, Ed Bice, Sandro Hawke, and David Karger. A Structured Response to Misinformation: Defining and Annotating Credibility Indicators in News Articles. The Web Conference, April 2018.