The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scientific literature: Information overload
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“researchers increasingly report feeling overwhelmed by the amount of literature they must sift through as part of their regular workflow ( 49 )”
From scite: a smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“These issues are exacerbated by the exponential growth of scientific output (Landhuis, 2016).”
From FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Landhuis, 2016
In the citing paper
“Given the rapid growth experienced by AI research communities in particular (Künzli et al., 2022), and by science as a whole (Landhuis, 2016), existing processes do not scale well.”
From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Landhuis, 2016
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Niles, M. T., Schimanski, L. A., McKiernan, E. C., & Alperín, J. P. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228914 · Cited by 244
Ge, J., Sun, S., Owens, J., Galvez, V., Gologorskaya, O., Lai, J. C., Pletcher, M. J., & Lai, K. (2024) · Hepatology · doi:10.1097/hep.0000000000000834 · Cited by 199
Fundamental research questions in subterranean biology
Mammola, S., Amorim, I. R., Bichuette, M. E., Borges, P. A. V., Cheeptham, N., Cooper, S. J., Culver, D. C., Deharveng, L., Eme, D., Ferreira, R. L., et al. (2020) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12642 · Cited by 145
Toward autonomous laboratories: Convergence of artificial intelligence and experimental automation
Xie, Y., Sattari, K., Zhang, C., & Lin, J. (2022) · Progress in Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101043 · Cited by 129
The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future
Drozdz, J. A., & Ladomery, M. (2024) · British Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Landhuis, E.
- Corresponding author
- Landhuis, Esther
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2016-07-20
- Volume
- 535
- Issue
- 7612
- Pages
- 457-458
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2479527281
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 13.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- information overload, scientific publications, research papers, literature management, social media, blogs, science communication
- MeSH terms
- Reading, Research, Research Personnel, Bibliometrics, Blogging, Research Report, Social Media
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
