The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward Benchmarking in Catalysis Science: Best Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Benchmarking is a community-based and (preferably) community-driven activity involving consensus-based decisions on how to make reproducible, fair, and relevant assessments. In catalysis science, important catalyst performance metrics include activity, selectivity, and the deactivation profile, which enable comparisons between new and standard catalysts. Benchmarking also requires careful documentation, archiving, and sharing of methods and measurements, to ensure that the full value of research data can be realized. Beyond these goals, benchmarking presents unique opportunities to advance and accelerate understanding of complex reaction systems by combining and comparing experimental information from multiple, in situ and operando techniques with theoretical insights derived from calculations characterizing model systems. This Perspective describes the origins and uses of benchmarking and its applications in computational catalysis, heterogeneous catalysis, molecular catalysis, and electrocatalysis. It also discusses opportunities and challenges for future developments in these fields.
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
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
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
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
McCrory, C. C. L., Jung, S., Ferrer, I. M., Chatman, S. M., Peters, J. C., & Jaramillo, T. F. (2015) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja510442p · Cited by 4,145
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979
Promoting an open research culture
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab2374 · Cited by 2,708
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888
The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research
Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165 · Cited by 1,055
Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate
Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 · Cited by 881
Cited by
Shih, A. J., Monteiro, M. C. O., Dattila, F., Pavesi, D., Philips, M., da Silva, A. H. M., Vos, R. E., Ojha, K., Park, S., van der Heijden, O., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00164-0 · Cited by 521
Bates, J. S., Bukowski, B. C., Greeley, J., & Gounder, R. (2020) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d0sc02589e · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Bligaard, T., Bullock, R. M., Campbell, C. T., Chen, J. G., Gates, B. C., Gorte, R. J., Jones, C. W., Jones, W. D., Kitchin, J. R., & Scott, S. L.
- Venue
- ACS Catalysis
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2016-03-24
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2590-2602
- ISSN
- 2155-5435 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2307947977
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 11.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.
