Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review

The submitted content is a scraped ScienceDirect landing page for the peer-reviewed review article 'Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review' by Soprano, Roitero, La Barbera, Ceolin, Spina, Demartini and Mizzaro, published in Elsevier's Information Processing & Management (2024), article 103672, DOI 10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672. All core bibliographic and substantive claims — authorship, journal, article number and DOI, open-access Creative Commons status, the PRISMA-inspired method, the derivation of 221 cognitive biases, the selection of 39 relevant biases, the 11 proposed countermeasures and the bias-aware fact-checking pipeline — were independently corroborated against the publisher record, the ACM Digital Library entry, the CWI institutional repository full text, dblp, and author/institutional pages. Two residual issues prevent a higher score: (i) the PlumX-style metrics reproduced on the page (50 citation indexes, 120 Mendeley readers, 1 policy citation, 2 news mentions, 11 social shares) are time-variable platform counts with no verifiable snapshot and are therefore Unverified — the ACM entry independently reports a different, platform-specific citation count; and (ii) a minor metadata discrepancy exists between indexes, with dblp listing the article in volume 61, issue 2 rather than issue 3. The text is a publisher interface dump containing navigation chrome, cookie-consent boilerplate and stripped hyperlinks, so it carries no persuasive framing; its emotional loading is negligible and its high self-reference count reflects ordinary academic 'we' usage in an abstract and highlights list, not promotional rhetoric.

What checked out (13)

• The article is titled 'Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review' and is published in Information Processing & Management, article number 103672 (2024) — confirmed on the publisher page (ScienceDirect, PII S0306457324000323) and the ACM Digital Library record.
• The DOI is 10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672 — confirmed by ACM Digital Library, the CWI institutional listing for Davide Ceolin and the University of Queensland expert profile for Gianluca Demartini.
• The author list is Michael Soprano, Kevin Roitero, David La Barbera, Davide Ceolin, Damiano Spina, Gianluca Demartini and Stefano Mizzaro, in that order — confirmed by ScienceDirect, ACM, dblp and the CWI full-text PDF.
• Author affiliations correspond to the a/b/c/d markers on the page: University of Udine (a), Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, Amsterdam (b), RMIT University, Melbourne (c) and The University of Queensland (d) — confirmed by the CWI repository full text.
• The article is open access under a Creative Commons licence and published by Elsevier Ltd; the full text states it is an open access article under the CC BY licence, © 2024 The Authors.
• The stated method is inspired by PRISMA, a methodology used for systematic literature reviews — confirmed in the abstract as reproduced by ACM and by the publisher page.
• The claim that the authors manually derive a list of 221 cognitive biases that may affect human assessors is accurate — confirmed by the ACM abstract and by the publisher's listing of 'Appendix B. List of 221 cognitive biases'.
• The highlight claiming identification of 39 cognitive biases that may compromise the fact-checking process is accurate — confirmed verbatim on the ScienceDirect highlights and the ACM record.
• The claim of a set of 11 countermeasures to mitigate cognitive biases in fact-checking is accurate — confirmed on the ACM record and the author's institutional publication page.
• The highlight describing the constituting elements of a bias-aware fact-checking pipeline is accurate — confirmed on the ACM record and the publisher highlights.
• The journal designation 'Volume 61, Issue 3' with a May 2024 date is supported by the publisher page, by the ACM record's 'Vol 61, No 3' and 1 May 2024 publication date, and by the CWI bibliographic listing (61(3), 103672:1–103672:29).
• The keywords listed (cognitive bias; misinformation; fact-checking; truthfulness assessment) are consistent with the published abstract and subject matter on the publisher page.
• The abstract text reproduced on the page matches the published abstract wording available from independent mirrors (ACM Digital Library and the CWI open repository full text).

• PlumX-style metric 'Citation Indexes 50' — cannot be verified as a fixed value; it is a live, continuously updated aggregate with no supplied timestamp. ACM independently reported a much lower platform-specific total (6 citations), which is expected because counting bases differ, but this prevents confirmation of the figure as stated.
• PlumX metric 'Mendeley Readers 120' — a dynamic capture count with no snapshot date; not independently confirmable.
• PlumX metrics 'Policy Citations 1', 'Blog Mentions 1', 'News Mentions 2', 'References 3' and 'Shares, Likes & Comments 11' — dynamic altmetric counts, no date stamp, no accessible primary PlumX snapshot; Unverified.
• The copyright footer 'Copyright © 2026 Elsevier B.V.' — an automatically generated site-wide notice reflecting the scrape date rather than a claim about the article; treated as interface boilerplate, not a factual assertion.
• The Data availability statement 'All the data involved have been provided in the appendices' — plausible and consistent with the publisher's listing of Appendices A and B, but completeness of the underlying data could not be independently audited within this review.
• Volume/issue consistency across indexes — dblp records the article as Inf. Process. Manag. 61(2): 103672 (2024) against the publisher's and ACM's 61(3). The publisher record is authoritative, so the page's '61(3)' is treated as correct, but the discrepancy is flagged as an unresolved third-party indexing inconsistency rather than an error in the content.

Confidence

High — Confidence is high because every high-priority, falsifiable claim on the page was corroborated by the primary publisher record and by at least two further independent sources (ACM Digital Library, dblp, CWI repository full text, and institutional author profiles at CWI, RMIT and UQ), with no contradictions among them. The content type — a DOI-registered, peer-reviewed, open-access article record — is inherently stable and auditable, which limits the scope for undetected error. Confidence is not rated Very High for three reasons: the six PlumX-style altmetric figures are undated and could not be reconciled with any accessible snapshot, so they remain Unverified; dblp's volume/issue entry diverges from the publisher's, indicating that at least one major index carries incorrect metadata; and the submitted capture had all hyperlinks stripped, preventing assessment of the page's own outbound provenance and of funding or competing-interest declarations. None of these residual uncertainties bears on the substantive accuracy of the article's described scope, method or findings.

Search journal

Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review Soprano Roitero

• https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457324000323
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377953285_Cognitive_Biases_in_Fact-Checking_and_Their_Countermeasu...
• https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/33882/33882.pdf
• https://www.damianospina.com/publication/soprano-2024-cognitive/

10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672

• https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
• https://www.cwi.nl/en/people/davide-ceolin/
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457324000323
• https://www.damianospina.com/publication/soprano-2024-cognitive/soprano-2024-cognitive.pdf

Information Processing & Management Volume 61 Issue 3 103672 cognitive biases fact-checking

• https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/33882/33882.pdf
• https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377953285_Cognitive_Biases_in_Fact-Checking_and_Their_Countermeasu...
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15205436.2025.2495206

Soprano Roitero La Barbera Ceolin Spina Demartini Mizzaro 39 cognitive biases 11 countermeasures

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457324000323
• https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
• https://about.uq.edu.au/experts/18932
• https://www.cwi.nl/en/people/davide-ceolin/

"11 countermeasures" cognitive biases fact-checking bias-aware pipeline Soprano 2024

• https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
• https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1468879/full
• https://www.damianospina.com/publication/soprano-2024-cognitive/
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.09221

Soprano 2024 cognitive biases fact-checking citations Semantic Scholar

• https://dblp.org/pid/222/1241.html
• https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377953285_Cognitive_Biases_in_Fact-Checking_and_Their_Countermeasu...

Michael Soprano University of Udine Davide Ceolin CWI Damiano Spina RMIT affiliations cognitive biases review

• https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/33882/33882.pdf
• https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ocK0qRUAAAAJ
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377953285_Cognitive_Biases_in_Fact-Checking_and_Their_Countermeasu...
• https://dblp.org/pid/222/1241.html

Article metrics

Emotion 8% · Reading grade 14.2 · 973 words