Publication summary
0% 13 analyzed articles/videos 7,698 analyzed words
BS Summary: These New Scientist results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Halo Effect , and Optimism Bias , with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 7,156 hits . Analysis detected 31,635 faulty-reasoning hits from 35,855 analyzed words across 13 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of 56% (178 of 398 publications). This New Scientist is worse (more manipulative) than 55.40% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 35,855
Article count: 13
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
55% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 55.4% percentile 2.1% BS Score13 analyzed articles35.9K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Publication 5.8% 5.8% Attempt to Sell a Product… Sitewide 0.5% Publication 20.0% 20.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 1.9% 1.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 5.1% 5.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.1% 2.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.6% 0.6% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 1.8% 1.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.2% 3.2% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Publication 0.8% 0.8% Self-Serving Bias Sitewide 3.7% Publication 0.2% 0.2% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Publication 5.8%, sitewide 26.9% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 20.0%, sitewide 0.5% Negativity Bias: Publication 1.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 5.1%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 13.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.2%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 1.8%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Publication 7.3%, sitewide 6.7% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Publication 6.6%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 3.7%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 2.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 1.0%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Indoctrination: Publication 1.9%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst