How to (seriously) read a scientific paper
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generic language in scientific communication
DeJesus, J. M., Callanan, M. A., Solis, G., & Gelman, S. A. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1817706116 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
- Venue
- AAAS Articles DO Group
- Published
- 2021-03-29
- OpenAlex
- W2332348497
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- Type
- dataset
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- AAAS Articles DO Group (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- reading scientific literature, scientific publications, critical reading, scientific writing, information literacy
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
