The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Reproducible Are Isotherm Measurements in Metal–Organic Frameworks?
Abstract
Scientific progress is severely impeded if experimental measurements are not reproducible. Materials chemistry and related fields commonly report new materials with limited attention paid to reproducibility. Here, we describe methods that are well suited to assessing reproducibility in these fields via retrospective analysis of reported data. This concept is illustrated by an exhaustive analysis of a topic that has been the focus of thousands of published studies, gas adsorption in metal–organic framework (MOF) materials. We show that for the well-studied case of CO 2 adsorption there are only 15 of the thousands of known MOFs for which enough experiments have been reported to allow strong conclusions to be drawn about the reproducibility of these measurements. Our results have immediate implications for the characterization of gas adsorption in porous materials but, more importantly, demonstrate an approach to assessing reproducibility that will be widely applicable in materials chemistry.
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
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Seven chemical separations to change the world
Sholl, D. S., & Lively, R. P. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/532435a · Cited by 4,769
Self-citationRaise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979
On thermodynamic separation efficiency: Adsorption processes
Lively, R. P., & Realff, M. J. (2016) · AIChE Journal · doi:10.1002/aic.15269 · Cited by 88
Cited by
Winarta, J., Shan, B., Mcintyre, S. M., Ye, L., Wang, C., Liu, J., & Mu, B. (2020) · Crystal Growth & Design · doi:10.1021/acs.cgd.9b00955 · Cited by 641
Imaging defects and their evolution in a metal–organic framework at sub-unit-cell resolution
Liu, L., Chen, Z., Wang, J., Zhang, D., Zhu, Y., Ling, S., Huang, K.-W., Belmabkhout, Y., Adil, K., Zhang, Y., et al. (2019) · Nature Chemistry · doi:10.1038/s41557-019-0263-4 · Cited by 579
Balancing Mechanical Stability and Ultrahigh Porosity in Crystalline Framework Materials
Hönicke, I. M., Senkovska, I., Bon, V., Baburin, I. A., Bönisch, N., Raschke, S., Evans, J. D., & Kaskel, S. (2018) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201808240 · Cited by 391
Unsupervised discovery of solid-state lithium ion conductors
Zhang, Y., He, X., Chen, Z., Bai, Q., Nolan, A. M., Roberts, C. A., Banerjee, D., Matsunaga, T., Mo, Y., & Ling, C. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13214-1 · Cited by 312
Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions
Walsh, J. P., Lee, Y.-N., & Tang, L. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.004 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Park, J., Howe, J. D., & Sholl, D. S.
- Venue
- Chemistry of Materials
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2017-12-13
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 10487-10495
- ISSN
- 0897-4756 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5002
- OpenAlex
- W2768095912
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.59
- 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: How Reproducible Are Isotherm Measurements in Metal–Organic Frameworks? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b04287
- The paper
- Park, J., Howe, J. D., & Sholl, D. S. (2017). How Reproducible Are Isotherm Measurements in Metal–Organic Frameworks? Chemistry of Materials. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b04287
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.
