CitaCierta
CitaCierta
Use cases for theses, articles and reports
Import, review and export while keeping every change under your control.
Transparent method
Each result separates matches, differences and missing evidence.
Hybrid processing
The file stays in your browser; only selected fields leave it for verification.
Export
Download TXT, JSON, BibTeX or RIS.
Five references: duplicates, a wrong DOI and a retraction
This example combines public bibliographic records with deliberately introduced errors. The table is recalculated by the app engine using retained, dated Crossref metadata; a future live query may return different evidence.
frank1970 and frank1970duplicate share a DOI. frank1970typo swaps 635 for 653: valid DOI syntax, but metadata point to a different identifier. feng2020 matches bibliographically and carries a retraction notice. incomplete is deliberately incomplete; a weak candidate proves neither existence nor non-existence.
| BibTeX | Status | Match |
|---|---|---|
frank1970 | Metadata match | 100% |
frank1970duplicate | Metadata match | 100% |
frank1970typo | Incorrect | 60% |
feng2020 | Metadata match | 100% |
incomplete | Not checked | 30% |
…3946.653 → …3946.63560% → 100%For the third record, accept only the DOI field after reviewing evidence. The score rises from 60 to 100 and three records now share the duplicate group. The original DOI and accepted change are retained; references are never removed automatically. Compare corrected-example.bib and corrected-audit.json with the input.
Weights: DOI 40%, title 30%, authors 15%, year 10%, journal 5%. Scores are normalized over comparable fields and are not probabilities that a paper is correct. Title and subtitle are compared together. No results, rate limits or provider failures leave a record unverified; they do not prove it false.
Crossref · 2026-09-24T23:01:13.882Z · REST API