Does fact-checking work? A critical review of evidence, limits, and conditions

Abstract

This article offers a qualitative critical review of the research on the effectiveness of fact-checking as a response to disinformation, covering the period between 2010 and 2025. Although journalism constitutes the historical core and the normative reference of the practice, the review deliberately treats fact-checking as a sociotechnical intervention whose boundaries exceed the newsroom, encompassing correction formats, preventive inoculation, crowdsourced verification, and artificial-intelligence support. Drawing on 148 studies identified through citation tracking and organised by qualitative synthesis, the analysis delineates three phases of scholarly understanding: an initial phase of skepticism about corrective effects; a phase of reassessment that establishes a conditional but real effectiveness and relativises the backfire effect; and a recent phase centred on explanatory formats, prevention, and automation. Across these phases, the evidence converges on the view that fact-checking reduces misperceptions, though its impact remains conditioned by motivated political reasoning, identity attachment, and uneven levels of media and information literacy. The article argues that fact-checking should be understood as a multidimensional practice that articulates cognitive, social, and technological strategies, and it draws out the implications for newsroom routines, fact-checking organisations, and professional training, with particular emphasis on combining design-based corrections with community engagement. By connecting theoretical debate with professional challenges, the review mobilises fact-checking as an entry point into wider questions of journalistic ethics and digital platform governance.