The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is one of psychology's most famous studies. It has been criticized on many grounds, and yet a majority of textbook authors have ignored these criticisms in their discussions of the SPE, thereby misleading both students and the general public about the study's questionable scientific validity. Data collected from a thorough investigation of the SPE archives and interviews with 15 of the participants in the experiment further question the study's scientific merit. These data are not only supportive of previous criticisms of the SPE, such as the presence of demand characteristics, but provide new criticisms of the SPE based on heretofore unknown information. These new criticisms include the biased and incomplete collection of data, the extent to which the SPE drew on a prison experiment devised and conducted by students in one of Zimbardo's classes 3 months earlier, the fact that the guards received precise instructions regarding the treatment of the prisoners, the fact that the guards were not told they were subjects, and the fact that participants were almost never completely immersed by the situation. Possible explanations of the inaccurate textbook portrayal and general misperception of the SPE's scientific validity over the past 5 decades, in spite of its flaws and shortcomings, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Orne, M. T. (1962) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0043424 · Cited by 4,041 · cited 2×
“He had quoted Martin Orne’s (1962) seminal paper on the subject early in 1971 (Zimbardo, 1971b), and he had written on it T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an Ps yc ho lo gi ca l A ss oc ia tio n or on e of its al lie d pu bl is he rs .”
Irwin-Zarecka, I., & Bauman, Z. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072918 · Cited by 2,249
The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-1153 · Cited by 1,563
The Society of Captives, a Study of a Maximum Security Prison
Levering, J., & Sykes, G. M. (1959) · The Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Police Science · doi:10.2307/1141342 · Cited by 1,503
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
Davis, R., & Fromm, E. (1974) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.2307/1384389 · Cited by 1,447
The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison.
Weinberg, S. K., & Sykes, G. M. (1959) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089462 · Cited by 1,367
Bauman, Z. (2023) · Social Theory Re-Wired · doi:10.4324/9781003320609-38 · Cited by 1,050
Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
Haney, C. W., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973) · Cited by 952
Kling, S. G., & Clemmer, D. (1941) · Harvard Law Review · doi:10.2307/1333983 · Cited by 474
Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study
Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466605x48998 · Cited by 401
Cited by
For the Greater Good? The Devastating Ripple Effects of the Covid-19 Crisis
Schippers, M. C. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577740 · Cited by 105
“These experiments have been repeated many times and influence research even today (Haslam and Reicher, 2017), even though the Stanford Prison experiment had some fatal flaws in design and carrying out of the experiment (le Texier, 2019).”
ResultRethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2019) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000443 · Cited by 69
Advances in transparency and reproducibility in the social sciences
Jeremy Freese, A., Rauf, T., & Voelkel, J. G. (2022) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102770 · Cited by 52
Idiographic Psychology: From Forms of Inference to Levels of Analysis, and Back AgainPreprint
Syed, M. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/hsp5v · Cited by 17
Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison ExperimentPreprint
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/b7crx · Cited by 18
Workplace in Space: Space Neuroscience and Performance Management in Terrestrial Environments
Tachibana, K. (2019) · Advances in neuroethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_15 · Cited by 11
Kaposi, D. (2022) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12667 · Cited by 11
Bartels, J. M. (2019) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058 · Cited by 11
Character Trouble: Undisciplined Essays on Moral Agency and Personality
Doris, J. M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198719601.001.0001 · Cited by 10
The archival turn in classical social psychology: Some recent reports
Brannigan, A. (2020) · Theory & Psychology · doi:10.1177/0959354320920367 · Cited by 10
“Damaging revelations of the origins of the Stanford Prison Experiment The next volume appeared in French in 2018 and was summarized recently by the author in an article in American Psychologist (Le Texier, 2019).”
BackgroundSilander, N. C., & Tarescavage, A. M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29148-7_11 · Cited by 9
The dirty work of the Stanford Prison Experiment: Re-reading the dramaturgy of coercion
Scott-Bottoms, S. (2020) · Incarceration · doi:10.1177/2632666320944316 · Cited by 8
“…‘directly contradicts’ the experimenters’ suggestion that they ‘did not give any formal or detailed instructions about how to be an effective guard’ (LeTexier, 2019: 8). between the simulated prison’s ‘Warden’, David Jaffe, and one of the volunteer guards, John Mark, from the second day of the…”
BackgroundBartels, J. M., & Griggs, R. A. (2019) · Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology · doi:10.1037/stl0000163 · Cited by 7
Arnold, P., & Costas, J. (2023) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/01708406231208372 · Cited by 10
“…Experiment (Zimbardo, 1972) or Milgram (1963) Experiment confirm Collins: during the experiments, participants did not easily engage in violent acts but had to be explicitly pushed into these (Le Texier, 2019) whereas defiance and disobedience were common (Perry, 2012; see also Bregman, 2021).”
BackgroundFor the Greater Good? The Devastating Ripple Effects of the Lockdown MeasuresPreprint
Schippers, M. C. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3612622 · Cited by 8
Rout, L., Khilar, P. P., & Rout, B. (2023) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2192404 · Cited by 6
“Another famous occurrence was “Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment,” in which undergraduate students volunteered to participate in the experiment (McLeod 2020; Le Texier 2019; Konnikova 2016).”
A Compass for What Matters: Applying Virtue Ethics to Information Behavior
Gorichanaz, T. (2023) · Open Information Science · doi:10.1515/opis-2022-0151 · Cited by 6
Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology
Bartels, J. M. (2023) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/14757257231195450 · Cited by 7
True Believers: The Incredulity Hypothesis and the Enduring Legacy of the Obedience Experiments
Doris, J. M., Niemi, L., & Machery, É. (2024) · Philosophia Scientae · doi:10.4000/11pu1 · Cited by 6
The SPE Remains Debunked: A Reply to Zimbardo and Haney (2020)Preprint
Texier, T. L. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/9a2er · Cited by 6
“Abstract Le Texier (2019) conducted the first in-depth analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationAre Milgram’s Obedience Studies Internally Valid? Critique and Counter-Critique
Russell, N., & Gregory, R. J. (2021) · Open Journal of Social Sciences · doi:10.4236/jss.2021.92005 · Cited by 5
Post-Publication Peer Review for RealPreprint
Ikeda, K., Yamada, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sp3j5 · Cited by 4
Debunking “When Prophecy Fails”
Kelly, T. F. (2025) · Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbs.70043 · Cited by 3
“The popular understanding of the Kitty Genovese murder (Manning et al. 2007), the Milgram obedience experiment (Perry et al. 2020), the Rosenhan experiment (Cahalan 2019), the Little Albert experiment (Harris 1979), and the Stanford Prison Experiment (Le Texier 2019) have all been challenged.”
Promoting Liberal Education Through Introductory Psychology: The Perspective-Based Approach
Searight, H. R., & Geiß, P. G. (2023) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1177/10892680221147910 · Cited by 5
Einsiedler, J., Lilleholt, L., Mortensen, L. H., Schild, C., & Zettler, I. (2025) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1177/08902070251319818 · Cited by 3
“…could have played a role in who participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment (irrespective of its challenged validity more generally; Le Texier, 2019) by comparing participants following the original study invitation with participants following an identical study invitation except…”
(2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108848916.045 · Cited by 3
Historical Context of Social Psychology in India
Suar, D. (2025) · Psychological Studies · doi:10.1007/s12646-025-00848-z · Cited by 2
“The Stanford Prison Experiment revealed ethical breaches, where participants were harmed, and flawed data were sensationalized to exag-gerate findings to realize the implicit goal of prison reforms (Le Texier, 2019).”
The foundational deficits of correctional rehabilitation
Logan, M. W., Long, J. S., Dulisse, B. C., Adams, I. T., & Morgan, M. A. (2026) · Evidence Base · doi:10.1080/30679125.2025.2602958 · Cited by 2
“…have been used to root out dogmatic practices, including famous studies that have either failed to replicate or are of poor methodological quality (Kulig et al., 2017; Le Texier, 2019) as well as formal assessments of punishment-based programs that have proven ineffective (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).”
Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik
Döring, N. M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_4 · Cited by 3
Administrative evil and moral disengagement: The case of torture in apartheid‐era South Africa
Einolf, C. J. (2024) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13875 · Cited by 3
“Most notably, the Stanford Prison Experiment has been discredited by evidence that Zimbardo understated his own role in the experiment and even falsified his data (Griggs & Bartels, 2019, Le Texier, 2019, but see Zimbardo & Haney, 2020).”
Who Wants to be Mindful? Personality Predictors of Meditation Practice
Ryakhovskaya, Y., Dam, N. T. V., & Smillie, L. D. (2025) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-025-02526-7 · Cited by 3
“Of course, the Stanford Prison Experiment has been widely discredited (Le Texier, 2019), and its findings may warrant scepticism, rather than explanation.”
Teaching scientific thinking using recent archival revelations about the Stanford Prison Experiment
Griggs, R. A., & Bartels, J. M. (2019) · Psychology Teaching Review · doi:10.53841/bpsptr.2019.25.2.39 · Cited by 2
Nudges y psicología de colmena: empujoncitos a la felicidad comunal
Löewe, D. (2022) · Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso · doi:10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp125-162 · Cited by 3
Exploring the Ecology: Beyond Cameron and Khanna
Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2023) · Human Arenas · doi:10.1007/s42087-023-00359-1 · Cited by 1
“They found little textbook coverage of published critiques, including archival records, providing evidence that the way these studies continue to be presented in textbooks is misleading (Le Texier, 2019; Perry, 2013).”
Yue, Q., Jeffrey, R., & Lv, D. (2023) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1002606 · Cited by 1
The social life of digital methods in psychology: Situating digital methods in the new data politics
Yen, J. (2023) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12923 · Cited by 2
Teaching Critical Thinking in an Academic Minefield
Bernstein, D. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82640-5_1 · Cited by 2
Have introductory psychology textbooks gotten better at representing psychological science?
Brown, J., & Ferguson, C. J. (2025) · The Journal of General Psychology · doi:10.1080/00221309.2025.2587151 · Cited by 1
Revisitando el concepto de la banalidad del mal desde la perspectiva del liderazgo de identidad
Canto, J. M., & Vallejo-Martín, M. (2020) · Escritos de Psicología / Psychological Writings · doi:10.24310/espsiescpsi.v13i1.10080 · Cited by 1
“Según Le Texier (2019), los archivos han proporcionado datos que reflejan que los guardias eran conscientes de lo que se esperaba de ellos © 2020 Escritos de Psicología Escritos de Psicología, 13, 34-4541 para conseguir los objetivos de la investigación.”
BackgroundInfluentialFreedom Versus Belonging: A Core Ambivalence in Contemporary Political Dynamics
Richards, B. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61510-9_41-1 · Cited by 1
Authoritarianism, Ambivalence, Ambiguity
Kranebitter, A., & Reinprecht, C. (2023) · Serendipities Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences · doi:10.7146/serendipities.v7i1-2.135380 · Cited by 1
(Don't) fear the bad leader: three influential myths about bad leadership
Metz, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2025.1589496 · Cited by 3
Racing for COVID-19 vaccine and cure: Lessons and tragedies in human subject research
Salam, A. M., & Carr, A. S. (2020) · Heart Views · doi:10.4103/heartviews.heartviews_144_20 · Cited by 1
“In 1971, researcher Philip Zimbardo conducted a study of the psychology of imprisonment by setting up a mock prison using volunteer college student subjects who assumed the roles of prisoners and guards.[16] The student “guards” brutalized the students “prisoners.”
BackgroundWhere is the Trouble in Pseudo-empirical Research?
Byers, P. (2021) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-021-09631-x · Cited by 2
Student’s Well-being and Academic PerformancePreprint
Swargiary, K. (2023) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/ewsaak · Cited by 1
Bianchi, R., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2025) · Occupational Medicine · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqae136 · Cited by 1
Joseph, J. (2025) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1177/10892680251331047 · Cited by 1
“The replication crisis has shown that many leaders of major behavioral science fi elds passed off and accepted obviously bad science as good science for decades (as one of many examples, see Le Texier, 2019).”
Retributivism, Consequentialism, and the Role of Science
Lavazza, A., & Corso, F. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-69277-3_11
Stein, D. J. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-90239-7.00009-2
Disconnect between research and policy
Allan, A. (2021) · Psychiatry Psychology and Law · doi:10.1080/13218719.2021.1926368
“Haney continued participating in innovative, if not controversial (see Haslam et al., 2019; Le Texier, 2019), research with his involvement in the Stanford Prison Experiment (Haney et al., 1973).”
BackgroundDuff, S. C., & McGuire, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108848916.050 · Cited by 1
(2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-90239-7.00013-4
(2022) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80043-334-220221014
Individuals as Perpetrators of Atrocity Crimes
Smeulers, A. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190915629.013.12
Brasser, M. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-35521-0_19
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
Devonis, D. C. (2020) · doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0269
SITUATIONAL FACTORS OVERWHELM PERSONALITY WHEN PREDICTING BEHAVIOR
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781118851715.ch1
Value-Laden and Value-Creation: The Political Process of Values
Carriere, K. R. (2022) · SpringerBriefs in psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07619-0_2
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-003
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-002
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-001
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-006
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-005
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-007
Optymizm pedagogiczny wobec tragicznej wizji natury ludzkiej
Majcherek, J. A. (2022) · Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny · doi:10.31338/2657-6007.kp.2022-2.3
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-009
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-004
(2022) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478023388-008
Testoni, I., Viezzoli, D., Biancalani, G., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192113717
Warne, R. T. (2022) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5406/19398298.135.3.12
Döring, N. M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_7 · Cited by 1
The multiversal methodology as a remedy of the replication crisisPreprint
Cantone, G. G. (2023) · MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/kuhmz
Hewstone, M., & Martin, R. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-65297-8_8
Behawioralna etyka biznesu: nowa rama koncepcyjna dla etyki biznesu
Kowalczyk-Purol, K. (2023) · Zoon Politikon · doi:10.4467/2543408xzop.23.002.17810
Simplification is Not Indoctrination
Gollwitzer, M., Prager, J., Altenmüller, M. S., & Zein, R. A. (2023) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/14757257231195352
“But with the information that is now out there (Haslam et al., 2019; Le Texier, 2019), this will certainly (yet, slowly) change.”
Background“I Am Charlie”: How Four Million People Stood Up against Terrorism
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_6
Political Violence as a Last Resort: The Role of Group-Based Relative Deprivation
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_4
Politics and Domestic Terrorism: Building a Diverse Democracy
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_3
Theories of Intergroup Relations: Vicious Cycles Between “Us” and “Them”
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_2
The Terrorist’s Motivation: The Psychology of Religious Extremism
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_1
Paris 2015: The Psychological Effects of Terrorist Attacks
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_5
Blueprint for a Long-Term Goal: Prevention of Political Violence
Guimond, S., & Nugier, A. (2023) · Peace psychology book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46254-2_7
The Bell Curve at 30: A Closer Look at the Within- and Between-Group IQ Genetic EvidencePreprint
Joseph, J., & Richardson, K. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/jz7ku
Hjelm, T. (2024) · Bristol University Press eBooks · doi:10.51952/9781447364061.bm001
An Open Letter to Our Students: Doing Interdisciplinary Moral Psychology (2017)
Machery, É., & Doris, J. M. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198719601.005.0001 · Cited by 1
Doris, J. M. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198719601.002.0007
Doris, J. M. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198719601.002.0005
Doris, J. M. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198719601.002.0003
Doris, J. M. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198719601.002.0004
Freedom Versus Belonging: A Core Ambivalence in Contemporary Political Dynamics
Richards, B. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-30366-1_41
Character Trouble: Undisciplined Essays on Moral Agency and Personality
D’Cruz, J. (2024) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.1215/00318108-11251731
Ethical Aspects of Cancer Nanomedicine: What We Do Not Know
Akram, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-3545-7_17
Ethics committees are not enough
Hansson, S. O. (2024) · Theoria · doi:10.1111/theo.12553
Ethical Issues in Psychological Science: Studying Humans, Analyzing Data, Publishing Findings
Crandall, C., Giner‐Sorolla, R., & Biernat, M. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009170123.003
Geiß, P. G., & Gerteis, M. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-69481-7_7
Urteilsbildung als ein didaktisches Modell für den Psychologieunterricht
Schreiber, C., & Patrzek, J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-69481-7_5
Irvin Sam Schonfeld Ph.D., M. P. H., & Ph.D., R. B. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781394249626.ch02
Bak, P. M. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-71181-1_9
The next steps for chemo-optimization in lung cancer treatment
Li, F., Jiang, B., Fan, X., Jiang, Z., He, J., & Liang, W. (2025) · Visualized Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1051/vcm/2025008
Metadata
- Authors
- Le Texier, T.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 823-839
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W2964441944
- Semantic Scholar
- 25aa53ca5a6599f7d7464761d4447ca331c48cd9
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 39.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
- Keywords
- Stanford Prison Experiment, scientific validity, demand characteristics, Zimbardo, data collection bias, situational influences, history of psychology
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Data Collection, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Prisons, Psychology, Social, Research, Social Behavior, Reproducibility of Results, History, 20th Century, Young Adult
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.
