The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust
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
1 retracted
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384 · Cited by 590
RetractedWhat Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters
Brooks, C., Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1997) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2655098 · Cited by 4,437
Couper, M. P. (2000) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/318641 · Cited by 2,078
What Americans know about politics and why it matters
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-0582 · Cited by 2,050
The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226644806.001.0001 · Cited by 1,680
Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
(2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3012-9 · Cited by 542
The sentimental citizen: emotion in democratic politics
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-3068 · Cited by 503
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.2.306 · Cited by 427
Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology
Roco, M. C. (2003) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1023/a:1025548512438 · Cited by 392
Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation
Dupuis, J.-M. (2002) · Plant Science · doi:10.1016/s0168-9452(01)00575-1 · Cited by 215
Cited by
Duncan, T. V. (2011) · Journal of Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2011.07.017 · Cited by 2,029
Nanotechnology and its applications in the food sector
Sozer, N., & Kokini, J. L. (2009) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.10.010 · Cited by 824
Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products
SIEGRIST, M. (2008) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017 · Cited by 536
Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., & Vereijken, C. (2011) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005 · Cited by 424
Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research
Earle, T. C. (2010) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x · Cited by 408
Metadata
- Authors
- cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Nanoparticle Research
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-405
- ISSN
- 1388-0764 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-896X
- OpenAlex
- W2058637166
- Cited by
- 537
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 16.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
- The paper
- cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
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.
