Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Experimental investigation of anion–π interactions – applications and biochemical relevance

Open access
Giese, M., Albrecht, M., Rissanen, K.·2016·Chemical Communications

Abstract

Anion–π interactions, intuitively repulsive forces, turned from controversial to a well-established non-covalent interaction over the past quarter of a century.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c5cc09072e

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Giese, M., Albrecht, M., & Rissanen, K.
Venue
Chemical Communications
Published
2016
Volume
52
Issue
9
Pages
1778-1795
ISSN
  • 1359-7345 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-548X
OpenAlex
W2201305088
Cited by
231
References
1
FWCI
21.00
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experimental investigation of anion–π interactions – applications and biochemical relevance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c5cc09072e
The paper
Giese, M., Albrecht, M., & Rissanen, K. (2016). Experimental investigation of anion–π interactions – applications and biochemical relevance. Chemical Communications. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cc09072e

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.