Citation context, not just citation counts — does the literature support this claim or contradict it?
At a Glance
| Publisher | scite.ai |
| Coverage | 1.3B+ classified citation statements (Smart Citations) drawn from full-text articles |
| Access | subscription (limited free features; often available via institutions) |
| Free alternative | partial — Semantic Scholar surfaces influential citations |
| Regional | global, following the indexed full-text literature. |
Our Take
Scite answers the question a raw citation count can’t: of the papers citing this work, how many support it, how many merely mention it, and how many contradict it? By reading citation context from full text, it turns “cited 500 times” into “and 40 of those dispute the finding” — which is exactly what systematic reviewers, evidence-synthesis teams, and due-diligence analysts need. The catch is dependence on full-text access, so coverage is uneven by field and publisher, and the best features sit behind a subscription. Use it to stress-test a key claim or a contested paper; don’t expect complete coverage in every discipline.
Power Tips
- Before relying on a heavily-cited paper, check its supporting vs. contrasting citations — a high count with many disputes is a flag, not an endorsement (Issue 2)
- in a preprint workflow, use Scite to verify that key claims are actually supported before briefing on them (Issue 2); combine with Europe PMC and Sciety for a confidence-tiered brief (Issue 4).
Alternatives & Complements
Semantic Scholar · Web of Science · Dimensions · Sciety.
Get Database Intelligence Weekly — search smarter, everywhere. [Subscribe CTA — replace with your signup block]