journal of communication book reviews

Journal of Communication

Subject Area and Category

• Communication
• Linguistics and Language

Wiley-Blackwell

Publication type

00219916, 14602466

Information

How to publish in this journal

[email protected]

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics

• Published: 10 November 2016
• Volume 110 , pages 355–364, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Weishu Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-6709 1 ,
• Yishan Ding 2 &
• Mengdi Gu 2  

1623 Accesses

16 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Book reviews play important roles in scholarly communication especially in arts and humanities disciplines. By using Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index, this study probed the patterns and dynamics of book reviews within these three indexes empirically during the past decade (2006–2015). We found that the absolute numbers of book reviews among all the three indexes were relatively stable but the relative shares were decreasing. Book reviews were very common in arts and humanities, common in social sciences, but rare in natural sciences. Book reviews are mainly contributed by authors from developed economies such as the USA and the UK. Oppositely, scholars from China and Japan are unlikely to contribute to book reviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

The Web of Science category information was retrieved on 17th October, 2016.

The number of general articles began to surpass book reviews from 2013 in A&HCI index.

Information Science & Library Science is a SSCI category, 44,207 out of 52,097 (84.86%) book reviews in this category were published in the Library Journal. For more information about this journal, please refer to : http://lj.libraryjournal.com/ .

East, J. W. (2011). The scholarly book review in the humanities: An academic Cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43 (1), 52–67. doi: 10.3138/jsp.43.1.52 .

Google Scholar  

Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98 (2), 841–852. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1176-4 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Guan, J. C., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. J. (2015). How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field. Scientometrics, 102 (1), 333–355. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1311-x .

Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (9), 1194–1207. doi: 10.1002/asi.20399 .

Hartley, J. (2010). The anatomy of a book review. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40 (4), 473–487. doi: 10.2190/TW.40.4.g .

Hartley, J., Cowan, J., Deeson, C., & Thomas, P. (2016). Book reviews in time. Scientometrics, . doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2114-z .

Karaulova, M., Gök, A., Shackleton, O., & Shapira, P. (2016). Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia. Scientometrics, 107 (2), 645–670. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1916-3 .

Kindle, P. A. (2015). Teaching students to write book reviews. Contemporary Rural Social Work, 7 (2), 135–141.

Liu, W. (2016). Comments on “a comparative analysis of scientific publications in management journals by authors from Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau: 2003–2012”. Scientometrics, 106 (3), 1269–1272. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1809-x .

Lee, A. D., Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Nyquist, J. (2010). How to write a scholarly book review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: A review of the literature. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 24 (1), 57–69. doi: 10.7899/1042-5055-24.1.57 .

Liu, W., Gu, M., Hu, G., Li, C., Liao, H., Tang, L., et al. (2014). Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective. Scientometrics, 99 (2), 507–521. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1152-z .

Liu, W., Hu, G., & Gu, M. (2016). The probability of publishing in first-quartile journals. Scientometrics, 106 (3), 1273–1276. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1821-1 .

Liu, W. S., Hu, G. Y., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. D. (2015a). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9 (3), 555–569. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.007 .

Liu, W., & Liao, H. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of fuzzy decision research during 1970–2015. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, . doi: 10.1007/s40815-016-0272-z .

Liu, W., Tang, L., Gu, M., & Hu, G. (2015b). Feature report on China: A bibliometric analysis of China-related articles. Scientometrics, 102 (1), 503–517. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1371-y .

Oinas, P., & Leppälä, S. (2013). Views on book reviews. Regional Studies, 47 (10), 1785–1789. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.856530 .

Sun, Y., & Grimes, S. (2016). The emerging dynamic structure of national innovation studies: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 106 (1), 17–40. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1778-0 .

Tan, J., Fu, H.-Z., & Ho, Y.-S. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of research on proteomics in Science Citation Index Expanded. Scientometrics, 98 (2), 1473–1490. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1125-2 .

Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2015). Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation Increases? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (9), 1923–1932. doi: 10.1002/asi.23302 .

Yu, D. J., Li, D. F., Merigo, J. M., & Fang, L. C. (2016). Mapping development of linguistic decision making studies. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 30 (5), 2727–2736. doi: 10.3233/ifs-152026 .

Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35 (1), 83–104. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.006 .

Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glanzel, W. (2009). Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences? Scientometrics, 79 (3), 593–621. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-2068-x .

Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (10), 1979–1991. doi: 10.1002/asi.21588 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (#16ZD08, #13AZD072, and #12AZD046). All the views expressed herein are those of the authors who also take full responsibility for any errors. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his (her) constructive comments and kindly help in editing the language of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Information Management and Engineering, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, 310018, Zhejiang, China

Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200052, China

Yishan Ding & Mengdi Gu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weishu Liu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liu, W., Ding, Y. & Gu, M. Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics 110 , 355–364 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2172-2

Download citation

Received : 28 September 2016

Published : 10 November 2016

Issue Date : January 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2172-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Book review
• Academic journal
• Web of Science
• Sciences and social sciences
• Arts and humanities

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

American Communication Journal

The official peer-reviewed journal of the american communication association, book review guidelines.

The  American Communication Journal  solicits reviews of books that reflect emerging trends within communication theory and praxis and/or those which illuminate provocative intersections between the field of communication and other disciplines and endeavors. Each review shall consist of a thoughtful analysis and/or critique of a contemporary text (or current translation, revision, or editing, including textbooks.)

The review should include a statement about the significance of the book, information about the author, the reviewer’s interest in the text/subject and a critical review of the text’s central themes. Reviews should be no longer than 750 words.  The deadlines are the same as for article manuscripts.

Following ACA tradition, we invite you to make use of the audio and visual potential of the World Wide Web as you organize your review. At a minimum we suggest that you construct hyperlinks to other authors or pages that might offer insight to your arguments. However, we also ask that you keep formatting to a minimum (no excessive use of colors, blinking text, etc.).

Publishers and authors are encouraged to send new books (copyright date within 5 years of  ACJ  posting date) and to inquire about reviews for forthcoming books to the book review editor at the address below.   Preference will be given to books related to interpersonal communication and popular culture.

Anita K. McDaniel Associate Professor                                                                                                             Department of Communication Studies University of North Carolina Wilmington 601 South College Road Wilmington, NC 28403-5933                                                                                           Telephone:  910-962-7932 Email:  [email protected]

SUBMISSION PROCEDURES

Authors should contact the Book Review Editor by email with a request to review a book. The request should include the title of the book being considered, the author’s mailing address and a 500-1000 word writing sample. If the quality of writing in the sample is acceptable, the review may be submitted or a copy of the book being considered will be mailed to the author for review.

• The Book Review Editor will check the review for blatant analytical, stylistic, or grammatical errors.
• If no errors are found, the author will be notified and the Book Review Editor will forward the review to the Managing Editor.
• If there are errors, the author will be advised to revise and resubmit the review until it is ready for publication.

REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICATION

• The author(s) must strongly consider all grammatical, stylistic, and substantive changes suggested by the Book Review Editor.
• The text must begin on a new page and be single spaced within paragraphs and double spaced between them.  Please do not include quotations longer than three sentences.
• The author(s) must ensure that all information (including name, affiliation and contact addresses), hypertext format, and links are accurate.   The editorial staff will not correct errors to a posted article unless they are related to converting the original document from Word to PDF.
• Neither the American Communication Association nor the  American Communication Journal  assume any liability for any information housed on its server. By agreeing to publish in the  American Communication Journal,  authors assume liability for all words, content, and meanings, regardless of context or third party involvement. The  American Communication Journal  will copyright all works on its site; however, authors retain the right to make use of their own work (with the exception of commercial publication).

Utah Journal of Communication

Book reviews.

The UJOC is seeking book reviews for upcoming issues. Reviewers who are interested in publishing an academic book review in the UJOC should consider the following guidelines when preparing their submission.

Book Selection

• The book has been published recently (within last three years).
• The subject of book is relevant to the field of comunication.
• The book is relevant to the focus and scope of the UJOC.
• The subject of the book is relevant to your own field of study or practice; you have adequate knowledge or background in the subject.
• Avoid books written by an author you know personally, or for which you may have some real or perceived conflict of interest.
• Avoid subjects about which you feel strong emotion or that you do not believe you can review fairly and professionally.

Length of Review

1,000-2000 words

Please head your review with the following elements:

• Author, title in full, place, publisher, date, edition statement, number of pages, price.
• Reviewer’s name, institution.

Example: John Doe,  The Big Book of Communication . Cedar City, UT: SUU Library Press, 2023, 206pp, $35.00. Jane Smith, Northcentral University

• If you quote from the book, please indicate page numbers. If you quote from other sources, cite the sources according to APA 7. Keep all quotations brief, however.
• Your overall evaluation may be favorable or unfavorable, but the review’s tone should be courteous. In all instances the reviewer owes the readers and the author a fair assessment of the book’s contents and conclusions.

What to Include

A strong review contains many of the following elements:

• A description of the topic, scope, and purpose of the book.
• Relevant information about the author or editor.
• The author’s point of view or frame of reference.
• The thesis or message of the book.
• The school of thought or scholarly current that the book arises from.
• Comment on intended audience or readership.
• Evaluation of use of available sources and/or evidence.
• Evaluation of the author’s success in achieving his/her purpose.
• Contribution to knowledge in the field; relationship to a current debate or conversation in the field.

What to Avoid

• Mere summary or description of the content, rather than evaluation of the content. In particular, avoid a chapter-by-chapter summary.
• Criticism of typographical errors or minor errors of fact, unless, in your judgement, these errors are so numerous that they raise questions about the overall quality and reliability of the book.
• Criticism that the author has failed to refer to or discuss some other author’s work, unless, in your judgement, that other work is essential or central to any discussion of the subject.
• Judge the book by its intentions, not yours. Don’t criticize the author for failing to write the book you think that he or she should have written.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest to the editors before undertaking the review. Please declare any conflict of interest or connections with the authors, editors, or creators of the book reviewed. The editorial team may decline a proposal if they feel that the connection between the proposed reviewer and the document suggested for review is too close. If the article is published, the declaration will be clearly indicated on the published review with links to details (if necessary).

Please seek advice from the editorial team if you are unsure of what constitutes a conflict of interest.

Copyright 2022, Utah Journal of Communication

Journalist Anupreeta Das Takes Readers Behind the Billionaire

In her new book, the New York Times finance editor explores the many facets of Bill Gates

• Mara Sassoon

As reporter Anupreeta Das covered Bill Gates over the years—first at the Wall Street Journal , and then at the New York Times where she is the finance editor—she became fascinated by the billionaire Microsoft founder’s many personas: genius, tech tycoon, philanthropist.

A May 2021 Times article about alleged sexual and other workplace harassment by Gates’ money manager, which Das (’07) cowrote, hinted at Gates’ complex public image, stating, “Mr. Gates’s reluctance to take decisive action…adds to an emerging portrait of the billionaire philanthropist that is at odds with his image as a roving global do-gooder and champion of women’s empowerment.”

That same month, Das covered the divorce of Gates and Melinda French Gates. “That’s when I began thinking about, ‘Who is this guy?’” says Das. “We kind of venerate him. He’s this philanthropist with this kind of unimpeachable profile.” Yet, before news of the divorce broke, there was already reporting on his alleged extramarital affairs and his connections with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who was accused of sex trafficking. “So I began questioning. Who is this person? And what is it about our fixation with billionaires? What does it say about us?”

Das grapples with these questions in her forthcoming book, Billionaire, Nerd, Savior, King: Bill Gates and His Quest to Shape Our World (Simon & Schuster, 2024) , due out on August 13.

The “Dark Side” of Philanthropy

“Gates was an early template for that nerdy, boy-genius, tech founder—super socially awkward, but also brilliant, and then they changed the world,” says Das. But “then he represented the worst of capitalism in the 90s, when Microsoft was accused of being a monopoly and Gates was often portrayed as this ruthless, Rockefeller-style, robber baron. That was another iteration.”

Das also delves into how Gates became a full-time philanthropist and changed how he was viewed in the public eye. “Here’s a guy with billions of dollars giving money away, changing how philanthropy works. How could you say anything negative about Gates? So that’s kind of the ‘savior’ and ‘king’ aspect of it,” says Das.

However, she examines the “dark side” of philanthropy, exploring how large-scale, institutionalized philanthropy can shape social and political agendas. “Even if that’s not your intention, it’s just the fact that money buys influence,” she says.

For example, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the largest donors to the World Health Organization. She points to the example of the Gates Foundation funding efforts for polio eradication. “The foundation has done a lot of great work, but because it has so much money, it could shape the agenda. It can actually influence global health priorities,” Das says.

“Who is this person? And what is it about our fixation with billionaires? What does it say about us?” —Anupreeta Das Anupreeta Das

She also discusses the potentially disingenuous aspects of “big philanthropy” and its image-remedying capabilities. “Philanthropy has always been a way for a lot of wealthy people to try to build themselves up in a certain way,” Das says.

She examines The Giving Pledge, a charitable campaign started by Gates and Warren Buffett, which encourages the world’s wealthiest to pledge the majority of their wealth to charity. While Mackenzie Scott, ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, has given away more than $16 billion to charity since signing the pledge, the Giving Pledge has still come under scrutiny for its lack of enforcement. “At its worst, the criticism is that it’s nothing more than a PR exercise for billionaires to show how humble and generous they are with all these commitments to give their fortunes away,” Das says. “But how can we assess if there’s anything good that’s come out of it? Because it’s not measurable. It’s just something people write to say, ‘I’m committed,’ and then there’s no way to actually hold people to their words.”

The Man and the Money

Das describes her reporting for the book as “outside-in,” starting with a lot of research on the subject, followed by reaching out to sources on the outermost fringes of Gates’ circle. “I think the best way to test your own hypotheses is to reach out to people,” she says. “Usually what I do, and this is for any reporting, is to reach out to people who are in the orbit, but at the furthest extremes, because they are likely to have insight, but also aren’t that close that they end up being bound by non-disclosure agreements.” She worked her way closer to Gates from there, including interviews with current Gates Foundation employees. (She did not speak with Gates himself.) “Ultimately, the goal is, by the time you get to the person who you’re writing about, you should have your information strong enough that it is hard for the person to deny.”

Das’s reporting reveals much about the US’ financial, social, and political landscapes. First, she looks into what has caused the immense growth in the number of billionaires. Whereas there were just 66 billionaires in the US in 1990, in 2023 there were more than 700. “But my biggest discovery, which was already a hunch, is just how much influence billionaires have on our lives,” she says, again citing Gates’ influence on the World Health Organization. She also investigates the social privilege at play in the making of many billionaires. “We celebrate billionaires. We kind of think of them as the apex of the American dream, right? Hard work, luck, talent, upward mobility.” Yet, she looks into why a large number of the Forbes “World’s Real-Time Billionaires” list are white men. “You have to address systemic advantage when you’re thinking about these success stories,” she says.

“I try not to be prescriptive, not to say, ‘Oh, this is what we must do,’” says Das.” Rather, I try to get people to think about all of these ways that we don’t connect wealth and inequality.”

• Business Journalism

Related News

Com alums explore dangers journalists face in new la times documentary.

COM, CDS Collaboration Leads to Investigation of Judges for ProPublica, Good Morning America

Two COM reporters awarded Nachman Writing prize

• General Communication & Media Studies
• Communication Studies

Journal of Communication

Vol 67(6 Issues in 2017 )

Print ISSN: 0021-9916

Online ISSN: 1460-2466

International Communication Association

Edited By:Silvio Waisbord

The Journal of Communication is the flagship journal of the International Communication Association and an essential publication for all communications specialists and policy makers. The Journal of Communication concentrates on communication research, practice, policy, and theory, bringing to its readers the latest, broadest, and most important findings in the field of communication studies. Journal of Communication also features an extensive book review section, and the symposia of selected studies on current issues.

JoC publishes the best available scholarship on all aspects of communication. Since the journal seeks to be a general forum for communication scholarship, it is especially interested in research whose significance crosses disciplinary and sub-field boundaries.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

FACT FOCUS: A look at false claims around the assassination attempt on former President Trump

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump is fueling a range of false claims and conspiracy theories as authorities seek information about the 20-year-old shooter’s motive and security at the venue that failed to stop the shooting

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump is surrounded by U.S. Secret Service at a campaign event in Butler, Pa., on Saturday, July 13, 2024. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)

• Copy Link copied

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump , who is running for reelection, is fueling a range of false claims and conspiracy theories as authorities seek information about the 20-year-old shooter’s background and motive, how he obtained the AR-style rifle he fired at Trump and security at the venue that failed to stop the shooting.

Here’s a look at the facts.

Photo is said to show Trump’s ear with no damage on Monday after shooting. It’s from 2022

CLAIM: A photo taken on Monday shows former President Donald Trump with no damage to his right ear, contrary to reports that it was injured in an attempted assassination on Saturday.

THE FACTS: The photo was taken on Sept. 17, 2022, at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, for then-U.S. Senate candidate JD Vance. Trump appeared at the Republican National Convention Monday night with a large, white bandage on his right ear. Myriad photos show his ear bloodied after a shooter opened fire at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, over the weekend.

Social media users are sharing the old photo as new, with some falsely presenting it as evidence that Trump was not injured by the gunfire.

“The top part of his ear grew back,” reads one X post from Monday night that had received approximately 40,000 likes and 13,200 shares as of Tuesday. “(Yes. This is from today)”

Another X post from Monday night states: “This image of Trump was taken today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his ear, and it has zero damage, FROM A BULLET. Everything about Trump is a con or a grift.” It received approximately 26,000 likes and 8,600 shares.

But the photo was taken nearly two years ago.

It is from a Sept. 17, 2022, rally in Youngstown, Ohio, for Vance during his Senate campaign. The image appeared in multiple articles published around that time. Trump chose Vance, now a U.S. senator, as his running mate on Monday.

The version spreading online is cropped to show only Trump and is zoomed in on the former president’s ear. In the original, Vance can be seen speaking at a podium while Trump stands behind him.

Trump appeared at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Monday night with a large, white bandage on his right ear . Numerous photos from the aftermath of the shooting show the same ear bloodied .

Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old nursing-home employee from suburban Pittsburgh, fired multiple shots at Trump with an AR-style rifle from a nearby roof at a rally for the Republican nominee on Saturday. He was killed by Secret Service personnel, officials said.

The attempted assassination left Trump and two other men wounded. Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old fire chief, was killed while protecting his family. The FBI said it was investigating the attack as a potential act of domestic terrorism, but has not identified a clear ideological motive, The Associated Press has reported .

Online posts falsely claim sharpshooter was told not to fire on suspect in Trump shooting

CLAIM: A law enforcement sniper assigned to Trump’s rally Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, says the head of the Secret Service ordered him not to shoot the suspect accused of attempting to assassinate Trump.

THE FACTS: No such order was made. Snipers killed the suspected shooter moments after he opened fire on the former president, bloodying Trump’s ear, killing one rally attendee and injuring two. The Secret Service and the Butler Police Department say they have no agents, officers or employees with the name of the person claiming to be the sharpshooter.

Following Saturday’s attempt on Trump’s life, a poster on the online message board 4chan wrote that they were a sniper assigned to the rally, and that they can be seen in a photo of two law enforcement officers on the roof at the rally.

“My name is Jonathan Willis,” the poster wrote. “I came here to inform the public that I had the assassin in my sights for at least 3 minutes, but the head of the secret service refused to give the order to take out the perp. 100% the top brass prevented me from killing the assassin before he took the shots at president Trump,” the post claimed.

But there is no agent or officer by the name of Jonathan Willis working for the Secret Service or the Butler police, and no internet records of such an officer could be located.

A spokesman for the Secret Service said snipers are trained and instructed to act whenever they see a threat, and do not await instructions before taking a shot to neutralize a suspect. He said he couldn’t discuss the specifics of agency communication or the details of the ongoing investigation, but said the post was false.

Witnesses at the rally alerted law enforcement to the suspect, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, after they saw him perched atop a nearby roof. A local law enforcement officer climbed to the roof and found Crooks, who pointed the rifle at the officer. The officer retreated, and the gunman quickly fired toward Trump, the officials said. That’s when U.S. Secret Service gunmen shot him, officials have said.

Crooks, a nursing-home employee from suburban Pittsburgh, fired multiple shots at Trump with an AR-style rifle. A spectator was killed and two others were critically injured.

Authorities said the shooting was an attempted assassination, but haven’t yet determined what motivated Crooks to try to kill Trump, the AP has reported .

Posts misrepresent photo to claim Trump was shot in the chest and saved by a bulletproof vest

CLAIM: A photo shows a bullet hole in Trump’s suit jacket, proving that he was shot in the chest during the attempted assassination .

THE FACTS: The photo actually shows a fold in the suit jacket of a Secret Service agent protecting Trump. Another Associated Press image taken moments before clearly shows there is no hole in Trump’s jacket. What appears to be a hole can be seen diminishing as the agent moves in video of the shooting’s aftermath.

Social media users are sharing the photo from the assassination attempt to claim that the former president was shot in the chest. Some posts suggest he survived because he was wearing a bulletproof vest.

In the image, what seems to be a small hole appears inches below Trump’s right underarm. Many posts use a zoomed-in version of the photo that has a circle around the supposed hole to emphasize the hard-to-notice detail.

“#Trump was also shot in the chest,” reads one X post. “The bulletproof vest saved him #We support Trump.

Another X post similarly reads, “It appears that Trump was shot in the chest, as the bullet seem to have pierced his suit; he was wearing a bulletproof vest.”

But the apparent hole is actually a fold in the sleeve of the Secret Service agent’s jacket, not the aftermath of a bullet.

The photo taken by an AP photographer shows the agent bending over as she protects Trump, her jacket appearing slightly darker than the former president’s. The fold can be seen by following the edge of the agent’s jacket from her neck to just below her left shoulder.

Moreover, another AP image taken moments before the one with the supposed hole clearly shows the right side of Trump’s jacket as he raises his fist. No hole can be seen in the jacket.

Trump wrote on his social media platform that he was “shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear.” Photos and video from the rally show blood on his right ear and on the right side of his face.

The Secret Service declined to comment on details of the shooting, including where the bullets hit, and did not respond to a follow-up inquiry about whether Trump was wearing a bulletproof vest. Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

___ Photo edited to make it appear Secret Service agents were smiling after attempt on Trump’s life

CLAIM: A photo from the attempted assassination of Trump shows Secret Service agents smiling as they surround him after the shooting.

THE FACTS: The photo was edited to make it appear the agents were smiling. In the original , taken by an Associated Press photographer , the same agents can be seen with neutral expressions.

After the shooting, social media users shared the altered image, with some suggesting it was evidence that the assassination attempt had been staged.

The photo shows Trump with blood on his face and ear, pumping his fist in front of an American flag while Secret Service agents surround him. Three agents whose faces are visible seem to be grinning as they protect the former president.

“Why are all 3 Secret Service agents smiling, at least that is how it appears to me,” reads one post on X. “Do to the seriousness of the situation, I would think their expressions would be grim + determined. Now, if it was a staged event, these expressions would make more sense.”

But the agents were not smiling at that moment. The photo was edited to make it appear otherwise.

The original image shows the same three agents with neutral expressions. One man is positioned behind Trump, a second man stands by his left shoulder and a woman is bent over on his right side, beneath his raised arm.

Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck .