Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 600

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison and assessment of methods for cellulose crystallinity determination

Open access
Salem, Khandoker Samaher, Kasera, Nitesh Kumar, Rahman, Md. Ashiqur, Jameel, Hasan, Habibi, Youssef, Eichhorn, Stephen J., French, Alfred D., Pal, Lokendra, Lucia, Lucian A.·2023·Chemical Society Reviews

Abstract

A suite of techniques is compared to understand the requirements, differences, synergies, and limitations of each method more comprehensively. Our review summarizes key principles to guide studies on the structure of cellulosics.

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/d2cs00569g

Cites

125 of 125 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 125 references

Cited by

See all 600

Metadata

Authors
Salem, K. S., Kasera, N. K., Rahman, M. A., Jameel, H., Habibi, Y., Eichhorn, S. J., French, A. D., Pal, L., & Lucia, L. A.
Venue
Chemical Society Reviews
Published
2023
Volume
52
Issue
18
Pages
6417-6446
ISSN
  • 0306-0012 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4744
OpenAlex
W4385958078
Cited by
600
References
125
FWCI
8.47
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: Comparison and assessment of methods for cellulose crystallinity determination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/d2cs00569g
The paper
Salem, K. S., Kasera, N. K., Rahman, M. A., Jameel, H., Habibi, Y., Eichhorn, S. J., French, A. D., Pal, L., & Lucia, L. A. (2023). Comparison and assessment of methods for cellulose crystallinity determination. Chemical Society Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2cs00569g

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.