The short version
Each publisher domain is placed in one of four bands and given a score from 0 to 100. The score travels with every story from that publisher, and when several outlets report the same news, the highest-scoring publisher becomes the lead item and the rest are grouped underneath it. The score rates the outlet, never the specific claim.
Score bands
Government agency, regulator or research institution publishing primary information.
Established newsroom with named health/technology reporters and a corrections policy.
Recognised industry or business publication covering this beat regularly.
Not yet reviewed by our editorial team — verify the claim with the original source.
The five signals we weigh
1. Primary vs. secondary source
Regulators, agencies, peer-reviewed journals and universities publishing their own findings score highest, because the claim and the publisher are the same party.
2. Named bylines and editorial accountability
Publishers with identifiable health or technology reporters, a masthead and a published corrections policy score above outlets that publish anonymously.
3. Beat expertise
Newsrooms that cover health technology continuously — rather than occasionally — are rated higher than general-interest sites reprinting the same story.
4. Independence from the subject
Press-release wires and vendor blogs are capped in the unverified band: the publisher is the company being written about, so the item is an announcement, not reporting.
5. Track record in our own queue
Sources that repeatedly produce items our editors take down or reject are demoted; consistently accurate sources keep their score.
What the score does not claim
- It rates the publisher, never the individual claim — a high-scoring outlet can still be wrong.
- It is an editorial judgement by the T.H.I.N.K. programme team, not a licensed third-party rating.
- Publishers we have not reviewed default to 50 and the unverified band until an editor rates them.
- Scores are reviewed as sources change ownership, staffing or editorial standards.
Rated publishers
54 publishers currently carry an editorial rating. Anything outside this list shows as unverified.
| Publisher domain | Band | Score | Stories |
|---|---|---|---|
| fda.gov | Official source | 98/100 | View |
| nih.gov | Official source | 98/100 | View |
| cdc.gov | Official source | 97/100 | View |
| who.int | Official source | 96/100 | View |
| ema.europa.eu | Official source | 96/100 | View |
| nejm.org | Official source | 96/100 | View |
| thelancet.com | Official source | 95/100 | View |
| nature.com | Official source | 95/100 | View |
| jamanetwork.com | Official source | 95/100 | View |
| bmj.com | Official source | 94/100 | View |
| statnews.com | Trusted health newsroom | 92/100 | View |
| reuters.com | Trusted health newsroom | 92/100 | View |
| apnews.com | Trusted health newsroom | 92/100 | View |
| kffhealthnews.org | Trusted health newsroom | 91/100 | View |
| npr.org | Trusted health newsroom | 89/100 | View |
| bbc.co | Trusted health newsroom | 89/100 | View |
| .edu | Official source | 88/100 | View |
| nytimes.com | Trusted health newsroom | 88/100 | View |
| wsj.com | Trusted health newsroom | 88/100 | View |
| washingtonpost.com | Trusted health newsroom | 87/100 | View |
| ft.com | Trusted health newsroom | 87/100 | View |
| economist.com | Trusted health newsroom | 86/100 | View |
| healthcareitnews.com | Trusted health newsroom | 84/100 | View |
| mobihealthnews.com | Trusted health newsroom | 84/100 | View |
| medtechdive.com | Trusted health newsroom | 84/100 | View |
| fiercehealthcare.com | Trusted health newsroom | 83/100 | View |
| fiercebiotech.com | Trusted health newsroom | 83/100 | View |
| modernhealthcare.com | Trusted health newsroom | 83/100 | View |
| eurekalert.org | Official source | 82/100 | View |
| axios.com | Trusted health newsroom | 82/100 | View |
| aha.org | Trusted health newsroom | 82/100 | View |
| bloomberg.com | Reputable trade press | 82/100 | View |
| arxiv.org | Official source | 80/100 | View |
| cnbc.com | Reputable trade press | 78/100 | View |
| massdevice.com | Reputable trade press | 76/100 | View |
| medicaldesignandoutsourcing.com | Reputable trade press | 74/100 | View |
| mddionline.com | Reputable trade press | 74/100 | View |
| insideprecisionmedicine.com | Reputable trade press | 74/100 | View |
| genengnews.com | Reputable trade press | 74/100 | View |
| techcrunch.com | Reputable trade press | 74/100 | View |
| beckershospitalreview.com | Reputable trade press | 74/100 | View |
| news-medical.net | Reputable trade press | 72/100 | View |
| medicalxpress.com | Reputable trade press | 72/100 | View |
| crunchbase.com | Reputable trade press | 72/100 | View |
| healthleadersmedia.com | Reputable trade press | 72/100 | View |
| businessjournals.com | Reputable trade press | 68/100 | View |
| bizjournals.com | Reputable trade press | 68/100 | View |
| forbes.com | Reputable trade press | 66/100 | View |
| pymnts.com | Reputable trade press | 62/100 | View |
| prnewswire.com | Unverified publisher | 45/100 | View |
| businesswire.com | Unverified publisher | 45/100 | View |
| globenewswire.com | Unverified publisher | 45/100 | View |
| substack.com | Unverified publisher | 38/100 | View |
| medium.com | Unverified publisher | 35/100 | View |
Questions we get asked
What does the reliability score measure?
It rates the publisher behind a story — whether it is a primary source, uses named bylines and corrections, covers health technology as a core beat, and is independent of the subject. It does not verify the individual claim in the headline.
Who assigns the scores?
The T.H.I.N.K. program editorial team. Every score is an editorial judgement recorded in the site's publisher registry, not a licensed third-party rating.
What happens to publishers we have not rated?
They default to 50 out of 100 and appear in the unverified band until an editor reviews them.
Can a score change?
Yes. Sources that repeatedly produce items our editors take down or reject are demoted, and scores are revisited when a publisher changes ownership, staffing or editorial standards.