Claims
Search the graph by meaning. Each result carries its current verdict; open one to see its decomposition, provenance, and the reasoning behind the assessment.
KindShowingImportancePrizesTopicScholarly Citation Practices
How authors in scholarly publications select, use, and represent cited works, including whether authors have read the works they cite. Excludes citation counts used solely as measures of impact when citation behavior is not at issue.
Proportion of authors citing a scholarly work who have read that work
25 to 85%QuantityA quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →Metascienceimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Proportion of citations in peer-reviewed articles that do not support the claims they are cited for
≈ 9%QuantityA quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →Metascienceimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Identical misprints recurring across reference lists show that many citers copy references without consulting the original work
UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →causalA claim that one thing brings about another, not merely that the two go together.constitution →Metascienceimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Contribute
If a claim here is wrong, or missing evidence, open it: every claim page carries its own entry for challenges, evidence, and corrections. If the graph is missing a claim or a question entirely, propose it below. A proposal is reviewed on its wording; accepted proposals are matched against the graph before they enter it.