SourceScore
DISCIPLINE · 35% of composite

London Review of Books vs The New Yorker — Discipline

How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.

Verdict

London Review of Books and The New Yorker tie on Citation Discipline (A · 90).

Magazine

London Review of Books

lrb.co.uk
A·90
Rank #60 of 130 on Discipline

Editor-supervised + fact-check + named scholarly bylines + corrections public.

Magazine

The New Yorker

newyorker.com
A·90
Rank #54 of 130 on Discipline

Famous fact-check department; multiple-source verification + author byline + corrections public.

Global rank · Discipline

SourceScoreGradeRankDetail
London Review of Books
lrb.co.uk
90A·90#60 / 130view →
The New Yorker
newyorker.com
90A·90#54 / 130view →

Why these Discipline scores

London Review of BooksA·90
Discipline · 90/100

Editor-supervised + fact-check + named scholarly bylines + corrections public.

The New YorkerA·90
Discipline · 90/100

Famous fact-check department; multiple-source verification + author byline + corrections public.

Signals behind the Discipline score

London Review of Books
  • Editorial standards
    Long-standing literary-review tradition.
The New Yorker
  • Fact-check tradition
    Rigorous fact-check before publication; cited by other newsrooms as standard.

Other dimensions for London Review of Books vs The New Yorker

SourceScore Index
Composite head-to-head — London Review of Books leads
Modern Reference
tie (78)
Velocity
tie (80)

Other Discipline comparisons

Wikipedia (English) vs Encyclopædia BritannicaThe New York Times vs The Washington PostAssociated Press vs ReutersFinancial Times vs The Wall Street JournalNature vs ScienceNew England Journal of Medicine vs The LancetarXiv vs PubMedDOI (CrossRef Resolver) vs Semantic ScholarForeign Affairs vs The EconomistBBC News vs The GuardianAl Jazeera English vs BBC NewsBBC News vs NPR