DISCIPLINE · 35% of composite
Foreign Affairs vs The Economist — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
Verdict
Foreign Affairs outscores The Economist on Citation Discipline by 21 points (A · 92 vs B · 71).
Higher Discipline
Magazine
Foreign Affairs
foreignaffairs.com
A·92
Rank #37 of 130 on Discipline
Editor-supervised; named authors (typically academics or practitioners); fact-check process.
News
The Economist
economist.com
B·71
Rank #115 of 130 on Discipline
Editorial fact-check process is rigorous, but anonymity makes individual-claim provenance opaque.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Foreign AffairsA·92
Discipline · 92/100
Editor-supervised; named authors (typically academics or practitioners); fact-check process.
The EconomistB·71
Discipline · 71/100
Editorial fact-check process is rigorous, but anonymity makes individual-claim provenance opaque.
Signals behind the Discipline score
Foreign Affairs
- CFR editorialCouncil on Foreign Relations editorial-board oversight.
The Economist
- House styleArticles attributed to 'The Economist' rather than named authors.
- Internal fact-checkEditorial review per piece, not externally verifiable.
Other dimensions for Foreign Affairs vs The Economist
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 ScholarBBC News vs The GuardianAl Jazeera English vs BBC NewsBBC News vs NPRPolitico vs The Economist