Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38370280›Full record

ReviewChemistry of materials : a publication of the American Chemical Society2024

Organic Cathodes, a Path toward Future Sustainable Batteries: Mirage or Realistic Future?

Jan Bitenc, Klemen Pirnat, Olivera Lužanin, Robert Dominko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemistry of materials : a publication of the American Chemical Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Electrolyte-Framework Matching in High-Voltage TEMPO-COF Cathodes for Lithium Batteries.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jan BitencNational Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0109-8121
Klemen PirnatNational Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0953-4108
Olivera LužaninNational Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Robert DominkoNational Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6673-4459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organic active materials are seen as next-generation battery materials that could circumvent the sustainability and cost limitations connected with the current Li-ion battery technology while at the same time enabling novel battery functionalities like a bioderived feedstock, biodegradability, and mechanical flexibility. Many promising research results have recently been published. However, the reproducibility and comparison of the literature results are somehow limited due to highly variable electrode formulations and electrochemical testing conditions. In this Perspective, we provide a critical view of the organic cathode active materials and suggest future guidelines for electrochemical characterization, capacity evaluation, and mechanistic investigation to facilitate reproducibility and benchmarking of literature results, leading to the accelerated development of organic electrode active materials for practical applications.

Identifiers

PMID38370280
PMCPMC10870817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.