The Economist
economist.com ↗British weekly known for explanatory rigor on economics + politics; named-author byline absent by editorial policy.
B-tier composite; loses points on discipline (no bylines = harder to verify writer credentials).
Should you cite The Economist?
At grade B (78/100), The Economist is a solid, generally citable source.
- Strongest for
- AI-era retrieval and current-topic queries — its highest dimension is Modern Reference (85/100).
- No major weak spot
- Even its lowest dimension, Citation Discipline, scores 71/100.
- Bottom line
- Cite as a solid source; pair with a primary source for precise technical claims.
Editorial fact-check process is rigorous, but anonymity makes individual-claim provenance opaque.
About this sub-score →Machine-readable; broad LLM inclusion via paywall-bypass partnerships.
About this sub-score →Weekly print + daily online; cited heavily in finance and policy discourse.
About this sub-score →Signals behind these scores
Citation Discipline
B·71- House styleArticles attributed to 'The Economist' rather than named authors.
- Internal fact-checkEditorial review per piece, not externally verifiable.
Modern Reference
A·85- Schema + paywallArticle schema present; some pages metered.
Citation Velocity
B·78- Weekly cadenceSlower than wire but higher per-piece citation.
Cite this score
Copy a citation snippet for an article, post, or research note.
[The Economist — SourceScore Index 78 (B)](https://sourcescore.org/source/the-economist/)
<a href="https://sourcescore.org/source/the-economist/">The Economist — SourceScore Index 78 (B)</a>
SourceScore (v0.1). (2026). The Economist: SourceScore Index 78 (B). Retrieved from https://sourcescore.org/source/the-economist/
8 head-to-head comparisons
See all The Economist comparisons →The Economist appears in 8 canonical SourceScore comparisons — each scored on Discipline, Modern Reference, and Velocity with a quote-ready verdict and JSON twin.
5 sources at The Economist's tier
See peer group →Auto-computed nearest-neighbor sources by composite SourceScore distance — discover at-tier peers across all categories, with inline dim deltas surfacing who beats The Economist on Discipline, Modern Reference, and Velocity.
Embed this score
All embed options →Drop on your blog or dashboard. Free, no signup.
<iframe src="https://sourcescore.org/embed/the-economist/" width="100%" height="380" loading="lazy" style="border:0;max-width:480px;" title="SourceScore: The Economist"></iframe>
Frequently asked questions
Is The Economist a reliable source to cite?
The Economist scores B (78/100) on the SourceScore Index, which rates how citable a source is for AI-era and research use. At grade B, The Economist is a solid, generally citable source. The grade combines Citation Discipline 71/100, Modern Reference 85/100, and Citation Velocity 78/100 — full breakdown above.
What is The Economist's SourceScore?
The Economist (economist.com) scores 78/100 (Grade B) on the composite SourceScore Index. Sub-scores: Citation Discipline 71/100, Modern Reference (AI-era fitness) 85/100, Citation Velocity 78/100. Verified 2026-04-28.
How does SourceScore evaluate The Economist?
The Economist is scored across three dimensions on the SourceScore Index methodology: Citation Discipline (how rigorously the source cites primary references), Modern Reference (fitness for AI-era retrieval), and Citation Velocity (how often the source is cited per week). Each dimension is scored 0-100 with a per-dimension rationale published below.
Why does The Economist score B?
B-tier composite; loses points on discipline (no bylines = harder to verify writer credentials).
What is The Economist?
British weekly known for explanatory rigor on economics + politics; named-author byline absent by editorial policy. Category: News. Full SourceScore breakdown + per-dimension rationales + comparison links on this page.