Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886574›Full record

ArticleJACS Au2025

The Devil Is in the Details: Pitfalls and Ambiguities in the Analysis of X-ray Powder Diffraction Data of 2D Covalent Organic Frameworks.

Samuel Van Gele, Sebastian Bette, Bettina V Lotsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACS Au, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Homochiral versus Racemic 2D Covalent Organic Frameworks.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Samuel Van GeleMax Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstrasse 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
Sebastian BetteMax Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstrasse 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3575-0517
Bettina V LotschMax Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstrasse 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3094-303X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) data of covalent organic frameworks (COFs) seem to be simple and apparently do not contain a lot of structural information, as these patterns usually do not show more than 3-5 distinguishable Bragg peaks. As COFs are inherently complex materials exhibiting a variety of disorder phenomena like stacking faults, layer curving, or disordered solvent molecules populating the pores, the interpretation of XRPD patterns is far from being trivial. Here we emphasize the critical need for precision and caution in XRPD data acquisition, refinement, and interpretation to avoid common pitfalls and overinterpretations in data analysis. This perspective serves as a comprehensive guide, educating the community on the nuances of refinement processes necessary for advancing COF research with clarity and accuracy.

Identifiers

PMID39886574
PMCPMC11775697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.