Scoring research methods,
not conclusions

The Citation Integrity Dashboard applies a uniform methodological rubric to published research reports. We score the process used to generate claims — not the conclusions themselves. A report can score poorly on rigor while being factually correct. A widely-cited report can have poor methodology.

Every dimension score is supported by specific evidence. Every flag links to primary documentation. Our rubric, weights, and all scoring sheets are published openly before any report is evaluated.

27
Reports evaluated
12
Organizations
1999–2026
Years covered
4.5
Avg. score / 10
1
Research-Grade
3
Adequate
10
Deficient
13
Advocacy-Grade

Organizations

Each organization has been evaluated on one or more published reports. Scores reflect the reports scored, not the organization itself.

Evaluated Reports

Sort:
Filter:
7.4cap
CID-0010
Indian Americans in a Time of Turbulence: 2026 Survey Results
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
TYPE 1Survey
2026
3.9
CID-0014
USCIRF 2026 Annual Report — India Chapter
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
TYPE 7Policy Report
2026
4.7
CID-0025
Silencing Dissent Abroad: Transnational Repression by the Indian Government
Hindus for Human Rights
TYPE 6Advocacy Document
2025
4.4
CID-0017
USCIRF 2025 India Chapter
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
TYPE 7Policy Report
2025
3.9
CID-0002
Hate Speech Events in India: Annual Report 2025
India Hate Lab
TYPE 2Incident Tracker
2025
3.7
CID-0007
Hindutva in America: An Ethnonationalist Threat to Equality and Religious Pluralism
Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR)
TYPE 3Investigation Report
2025
6.2
CID-0009
Risk of Mass Atrocities in India
US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Simon-Skjodt Center
TYPE 7Policy Report
2024
6.0
CID-0018
India: Religious Freedom Issues (R45303)
Congressional Research Service
TYPE 7Policy Report
2024
5.4
CID-0008
HAF Way to Supremacy: How the Hindu American Foundation Rebrands Bigotry as Minority Rights
Savera: United Against Supremacy
TYPE 3Investigation Report
2024
5.3
CID-0006
Islamophobia in the 2024 New York Mayoral Race
Center for Study of Organized Hate (CSOH)
TYPE 2Incident Tracker
2024
4.2
CID-0027
South Asia State of Minorities Report 2024: Economic, Political and Social Participation and Representation of Minorities
The South Asia Collective
TYPE 6Advocacy Document
2024
4.1
CID-0023
Cut From the Same Cloth: The VHP-A's Ties to its Indian Counterpart
Savera: United Against Supremacy
TYPE 3Investigation Report
2024

Document Types

Each report is classified by document type. The type determines which rubric dimensions apply and how weights are redistributed when dimensions are N/A.

TYPE 1
Survey
Population-level data collection using structured questionnaires. All 8 dimensions apply; D2 and D3 are adapted for survey methodology (interviewer consistency, sampling frame).
TYPE 2
Incident Tracker
Databases or reports that catalog discrete events (hate crimes, violence, discrimination). All 8 dimensions apply. Sampling and classification are assessed on case capture completeness.
TYPE 3
Investigation Report
Qualitative investigations into specific organizations, networks, or phenomena. D2 (Classification Rigor) and D3 (Case Capture) are N/A; their weights redistribute proportionally.
TYPE 4
Composite Index
Multi-indicator rankings or indices that aggregate data from multiple sources into a single score or ranking. All 8 dimensions apply with full weights.
TYPE 5
Academic Study
Peer-reviewed or pre-print research following academic conventions. All 8 dimensions apply. Held to the highest verification standards, including data availability and replicability.
TYPE 6
Advocacy Document
Reports produced by organizations with a stated advocacy mission. D2 and D3 are N/A; their weights redistribute. D4 (Coverage Symmetry) and D5 (Source Independence) always apply at full weight.
TYPE 7
Policy Report
Government, intergovernmental, or institutional reports intended to inform policy decisions. D2 and D3 are N/A; their weights redistribute. Evaluated on transparency, sourcing, and evidence balance.