Scite

homifejhmckachdikhkgomachelakohh

scite allows users to see how a publication has been cited, providing the citation context and classification

Latest reviews

• (2025-07-04) Thabiso Blackwell M: simply the best
• (2025-06-18) Simon Levesque: Charged me $22 without permission
• (2024-05-27) Ghanbari Afsane: Amazing, Thank you very much....
• (2024-02-15) Gert van den Berg: Was useful, now way too expensive for someone that is using it to try to make sense science, without being paid to do so. It promised making it much easier to check how a paper was received, but now has the same paywall issues as many journals.
• (2024-02-15) Gert van den Berg: Was useful, now way too expensive for someone that is using it to try to make sense science, without being paid to do so. It promised making it much easier to check how a paper was received, but now has the same paywall issues as many journals.
• (2024-01-30) Sami Khalifé-Sayah: dont work
• (2023-11-29) Elahe Derakhshi: what the hell is payment before starting free trial?
• (2023-11-26) Msc Eco: Ineffective; read reviews, but discovered that payment is required upfront, even for the trial. A proper trial should allow users to experience the service first, and after 7 days, request banking information only if the user is satisfied with SCite.
• (2023-06-27) Neo Izumiyama: useless, cannot help me
• (2023-06-27) Neo Izumiyama: useless, cannot help me
• (2023-04-21) Antoine Lemercier: Doesn't work on chromium anymore. Feel sad, that was helpful.
• (2023-04-21) Antoine Lemercier: Doesn't work on chromium anymore. Feel sad, that was helpful.
• (2023-04-21) 朱岳鑫: chrome 112.0.5615.138 cannot use scite
• (2023-04-21) 朱岳鑫: chrome 112.0.5615.138 cannot use scite
• (2023-03-31) song david: 谢谢非常不错
• (2021-07-01) Neri Marsili: Maybe it is in my subfield (linguistics/psychology), but it gets everything wrong. It fails to identify most supporting and contrasting citation. When it classifies one as such, is oftentimes incorrect (e.g. the citation is not actually supportive) or misleading (e.g. a self-citation of previous research). Scite would be a really cool instrument; but at its current state, it does not seem to work for entire, massive fields of studies.
• (2021-07-01) Neri Marsili: Maybe it is in my subfield (linguistics/psychology), but it gets everything wrong. It fails to identify most supporting and contrasting citation. When it classifies one as such, is oftentimes incorrect (e.g. the citation is not actually supportive) or misleading (e.g. a self-citation of previous research). Scite would be a really cool instrument; but at its current state, it does not seem to work for entire, massive fields of studies.
• (2021-02-03) Dmitriy Nikitin: Very easy to use and helps increase productivity when doing literature reviews
• (2021-02-03) Dmitriy Nikitin: Very easy to use and helps increase productivity when doing literature reviews
• (2020-08-19) Cenk Özbakir: Very useful
• (2020-08-19) Cenk Özbakir: Very useful
• (2020-06-24) Birgit Schmidt: A great tool to assess the type of citations an article has received! Will certainly check this for my own papers from time to time.
• (2020-06-24) Birgit Schmidt: A great tool to assess the type of citations an article has received! Will certainly check this for my own papers from time to time.
• (2019-10-29) Chang Liu: 很好！
• (2019-08-18) Wang Yili: Scite 可以查看一篇论文被哪些文章引用过 亮点是:可以看有哪些文章同意作者的观点，有哪些持反对意见，有哪些只是提到了。 从而衡量一下这篇论文的可靠性。
• (2019-07-08) Joel Brownlee: Really like it. Had it for awhile now and still use it a lot.
• (2019-07-08) Joel Brownlee: Really like it. Had it for awhile now and still use it a lot.