Skip to content

R0051/2026-03-31/Q002/S03

Research R0051 — Fact-Checking Gap
Run 2026-03-31
Query Q002
Search S03

WebSearch — Credibility Coalition research outputs and annotation studies

Summary

Field Value
Source/Database WebSearch
Query terms credibility coalition content credibility indicators vocabulary annotation study reliability 2018 2019
Filters None
Results returned 10
Results selected 3
Results rejected 7

Selected Results

Result Title URL Rationale
S03-R01 Survey on Automatic Credibility Assessment (Srba 2025) https://arxiv.org/html/2410.21360v2 Most recent survey citing CCIV — status assessment
S03-R02 A Structured Response to Misinformation (Zhang 2018) https://researchgate.net/publication/324639995_A_Structured_Response_to_Misinformation_Defining_and_Annotating_Credibility_Indicators_in_News_Articles Foundational annotation study
S03-R03 Credibility Coalition Research page https://credibilitycoalition.org/research/ Research outputs listing

Rejected Results

Result Title URL Rationale
S03-R04 Survey v1 (duplicate) https://arxiv.org/html/2410.21360v1 Earlier version of S03-R01
S03-R05 Credibility Coalition main (duplicate) https://credibilitycoalition.org/ Already captured as S01-R03
S03-R06 InfluenceWatch — Credibility Coalition https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/credibility-coalition/ Organizational profile, not specification content
S03-R07 Survey preprint (duplicate) https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/223241/1/2410.21360v1.pdf PDF duplicate of S03-R01
S03-R08 EDMO Content Reliability https://edmo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Enhancing-Content-Reliability-by-Prominence.-Indicators-for-Trustworthy-Online-Sources-Report.pdf European initiative — different from W3C/Coalition work
S03-R09 Hypothesis blog: Credibility annotation https://web.hypothes.is/blog/evaluating-credibility-on-the-web-with-annotation/ Blog post about annotation tool integration — supplementary
S03-R10 CCIV specification (duplicate) https://credweb.org/cciv Already captured as S02-R03

Notes

The 2025 survey by Srba et al. provides the most current academic assessment of the CCIV's status — describing it as "an informal and incomplete draft" that "has not been standardized yet" but "served as a foundation to several research works."