The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Comprehensive Understanding of as an Evaluation Parameter for Electrochemical Water Splitting
Open accessAbstract
Comparing the overpotential required to reach the current density of (per geometric area of an electrode) (η@) is a popular method of ranking electrocatalysts for water‐splitting reactions, i.e., the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) and the oxygen evolution reaction (OER). However, such methodology is, in essence, not reasonable for studying the intrinsic chemistry difference of electrocatalysts. To have a rational understanding of η@, here, its historical origin and its limitations on reflecting the intrinsic electrocatalytic activity are discussed. The η@ is a valid practical parameter to assess water‐splitting devices, but it cannot determine whether a particular electrocatalyst is intrinsically active or not.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Benchmarking Heterogeneous Electrocatalysts for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction
McCrory, C. C. L., Jung, S., Peters, J. C., & Jaramillo, T. F. (2013) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja407115p · Cited by 7,026
Earth-abundant catalysts for electrochemical and photoelectrochemical water splitting
Roger, I., Shipman, M. A., & Symes, M. D. (2017) · Nature Reviews Chemistry · doi:10.1038/s41570-016-0003 · Cited by 3,503
Toward the rational design of non-precious transition metal oxides for oxygen electrocatalysis
Hong, W. T., Risch, M., Stoerzinger, K. A., Grimaud, A., Suntivich, J., & Shao-Horn, Y. (2015) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c4ee03869j · Cited by 2,089
Benchmarking nanoparticulate metal oxide electrocatalysts for the alkaline water oxidation reaction
Jung, S., McCrory, C. C. L., Ferrer, I. M., Peters, J. C., & Jaramillo, T. F. (2016) · Journal of Materials Chemistry A · doi:10.1039/c5ta07586f · Cited by 600
Cited by
A review on fundamentals for designing oxygen evolution electrocatalysts
Song, J., Wei, C., Huang, Z.-F., Liu, C., Zeng, L., Wang, X., & Xu, Z. J. (2020) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c9cs00607a · Cited by 2,936
Self-citationNoble‐Metal‐Free Electrocatalysts for Oxygen Evolution
Lyu, F., Wang, Q., Choi, S. M., & Yin, Y. (2019) · Small · doi:10.1002/smll.201804201 · Cited by 533
Self-supported electrocatalysts for practical water electrolysis
Yang, H., Driess, M., & Menezes, P. W. (2021) · Advanced Energy Materials · doi:10.1002/aenm.202102074 · Cited by 489
Jin, Z., Lyu, J., Zhao, Y.-L., Li, H., Lin, X., Xie, G., Liu, X., Kai, J.-J., & Qiu, H.-J. (2020) · ACS Materials Letters · doi:10.1021/acsmaterialslett.0c00434 · Cited by 244
Hu, C., Song, E., Wang, M., Chen, W., Huang, F., Feng, Z., Liu, J., & Wang, J. (2021) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202001881 · Cited by 144
Metadata
- Authors
- Wei, C., & Xu, Z. J.
- Venue
- Small Methods
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-07-25
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 11
- ISSN
- 2366-9608 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2883769058
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Comprehensive Understanding of as an Evaluation Parameter for Electrochemical Water Splitting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smtd.201800168
- The paper
- Wei, C., & Xu, Z. J. (2018). The Comprehensive Understanding of as an Evaluation Parameter for Electrochemical Water Splitting. Small Methods. https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.201800168
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
