The review protocol has been preregistered within the Open Science Framework database (osf/io/etw9d) will be reported in accordance with the reporting guid- ance provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)  (see checklist in Addi- tional file 1). Research objectives, inclusion criteria, and methodological techniques will be determined before study commencement using the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews . This process will adhere to the indicated framework: 1) identifying research question; 2) devel- oping comprehensive search strategy; 3) identifying relevant studies; 4) selecting studies; 5) charting data; and 6) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. The study team will develop a search strategy as recommended by the 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews.
This scoping review will be conducted by 13 individuals: 12 researchers from sev- eral universities worldwide, from a range of disciplines (e.g. public health, medicine, communication studies, mathematics, nursing, computer science, political science), and an informationist from the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Li- brary at Yale University. As mentioned above, the objective of the scoping review is to develop a better understanding of the current research landscape around in- terventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation by investigating existing studies and gaps in the research. The broad research questions are “what are the benefits and risks of interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation?” and “what are the gaps in the current knowledge base on interventions to mitigate COVID-19 mis- information?” The search strategy will be performed in line with techniques that enhance methodological transparency and improve the reproducibility of the results and evidence synthesis.
Information sources and search strategy
The primary source of literature will be a structured search of electronic databases (from January 2020 onwards): MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and So- ciological Abstracts. The secondary source of potentially relevant material will be a search of preprint servers (e.g. EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints), Disaster Lit, Google Scholar (e.g. the first five pages will be searched), Open Sci- ence Framework, governmental websites and the COVID-19 social science research tracker . The references of included documents will be hand-searched to identify any additional evidence sources. We will also conduct forward citation chaining. The search strategy will be designed by a research librarian and peer-reviewed by using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist . A draft search strategy for Scopus is provided in Additional file 2. We will use search terms consistent with our main search to find articles for inclusion. The same key- words for the main search will be used to search grey literature each time. All grey literature will be compiled in a folder and reviewed similarly to articles obtained from our database searches. EndNote, a bibliographic software, will be used to store, organize, and manage all references .
We will include all intervention studies that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. Only English language studies will be considered for inclusion. Past work suggests that excluding non-English language records from a review has a minimal effect on results [23, 24].
Published research (peer-reviewed and grey literature where primary data was col- lected such as reports, research letters and briefs) investigating interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation (as long as the authors have denoted the topic of study as misinformation) in all populations, and settings will be eligible for in- clusion.
Only intervention-based studies will be included (e.g. experimental studies, quasi- experimental studies, randomized controlled trials).
There will be no restrictions on the region.
Studies reported only as conference abstracts will also be included, only if we do not have access to the full paper. Conference abstracts are often left out of sys- tematic reviews as they may not contain adequate information to conduct quality assessment or a meta-analysis. Here, we will include conference abstracts as they are often published earlier than full manuscripts , which is key to a thorough scoping review on an ongoing phenomenon.
Commentaries, correspondences, case reports, case series, editorials, and opinion pieces will be excluded. Case reports and case series often contain relatively limited evidence .
Qualitative studies will be excluded.
Non-intervention studies will be excluded.
Governmental, other agency guidelines and white papers will be excluded. Reviews such as systematic reviews and scoping reviews will be excluded, but we will review the references in these for inclusion, if applicable.
Screening and selection procedure
All reports identified from the searches will be screened by two reviewers indepen- dently. First, titles and abstracts of articles returned from initial searches will be screened based on the eligibility criteria outlined above. Second, full texts will be examined in detail and screened for eligibility. Third, references of all considered articles will be hand-searched to identify any relevant report missed in the search strategy. We will also conduct forward citation chaining. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion, or if necessary, with a third reviewer. A flow chart show- ing details of studies included and excluded at each stage of the study selection process will be provided. We will contact authors where necessary if the abstracts do not provide sufficient information . Covidence will be used to manage the title/abstract and full-text screening phases .
Reviewers will undergo a practice exercises till they have a high level of agreement (> 0.8 kappa) and then independently extract data from studies. Reviewers will abstract the data using a pretested data extraction template. We will use a stan- dardized coding protocol to collect information such as: title of study, authors, date published; study setting; study design; description of methodology; description of study sample; type of intervention; type of misinformation (if any); main findings. Even though a formal risk of bias is not planned for this scoping review, we will note which studies are pre-prints and have not been formally peer-reviewed. We will also note if some studies fail to report appropriate information.
Outcomes and other information collected regarding selected studies will be synthe- sized using quantitative (e.g. outcomes) and qualitative (e.g. content and thematic analysis) methods, with a narrative summary of findings conducted. Synthesis will be presented in tables, summary data in graphs, and individual data for each study in tables. The broad goal of the synthesis is to identify gaps in research and present recommendations for future research agendas.