Ask questions across claims linked to experiments, exact results, limitations, and sources.Know what the science actually supports before you trust the answer.
Press Enter β΅ to search evidence
Explore by Goal
"Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."
- Marie Curie
Quick Analysis Plan
Copied
The collection is internally coherent but the method shows a critical ambiguity: the search term "DOI" conflated the digital object identifier with the psychedelic drug 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine and the enzyme substrate 2-deoxy-scyllo-inosose, so most retrieved papers are drug/biochemistry studies rather than identifier-related work, and no citation counts were supplied to verify a "top cited" ranking.
Long Analysis Plan
Method Rigor Check: Entity Ambiguity Is the Dominant Flaw
The collected records reveal a term disambiguation failure at the heart of the query. Of 8 retrieved papers, only one directly concerns digital object identifiers as a scholarly-infrastructure topic . The remaining seven were retrieved because the acronym DOI matches (a) the psychedelic 5-HT2 agonist 1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenyl)-2-aminopropane in rat discrimination, mouse vision, olfactory search, auditory cortex, and tic-like behavior studies ; and (b) 2-deoxy-scyllo-inosose (DOI synthase) in aminoglycoside biosynthesis ; plus (c) depth-of-interaction (DOI) in a handheld Compton camera . A "top cited papers by DOI" collection should not span neuropharmacology, gamma-ray detector engineering, enzymology, and probiotics.
Figure 1: Rubric scores from the supplied records (sourced metadata, not independent ratings). Two records (PS128 tics; auditory 2024) lack reproducibility scores, and the Scientometrics record lacks generality/usefulness/reproducibility scores β an inconsistency in extraction coverage.
Rigor Checklist Verdict
Citation counts: The "incoming_citations" field is empty for 7 of 8 records; only the V1 vision preprint lists one incoming citation. No ranking by citation count is verifiable from the supplied data β the "top cited" premise is unsupported.
Temporal spread: Records span 1986β2025, violating the citation half-life assumption of a current top-cited snapshot; a 1986 rat discrimination paper may accumulate citations over decades, biasing against recent high-impact preprints.
Extraction inconsistency: 6 of 8 records use a "legacy" schema without claim-level evidence units; only the PS128 record uses the structured evidence.v4 schema with falsification criteria and provenance hashes .
Methodological soundness of underlying sources: Mixed β several animal studies use small samples (n=4 mice , n=6 rats ), and hardware validation relies on a single lab-built detector .
What would change this verdict: supplying per-record citation counts, a stricter disambiguation query (e.g., "digital object identifier" OR author-constrained terms), and uniform evidence.v4 extraction would either validate or refute the "top cited" framing. If Hongbing Fu is an intended author constraint, none of the 8 records demonstrably match a single author, suggesting the author filter failed or was never applied.
We'll email you the results when your analysis is finished.
Hypothesis Graveyard
Assumption that 'top cited' was verified: the records' incoming_citations fields are overwhelmingly empty, so no ranking was performed β the label was applied without the supporting metric, which is the defining rigor failure here.