A real example: what you get
6 new papers citing “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters”
- What each one does with it: questions it, supports it, builds on it, uses it or mentions it
- The sentences that cite it, read in the citing paper
- Self-citations apart, and an email at once when a paper questions it
- Every day, week or month, for your papers and those you follow
uses it
It uses the Planck cosmology alongside SH0ES to bracket Hubble-constant-dependent propagation results.
A Collapsar-disk Origin for GW190814
The email you would have received · 6 new citations of the papers you follow
The first results
-
A Collapsar-disk Origin for GW190814
uses it
It uses the Planck cosmology alongside SH0ES to bracket Hubble-constant-dependent propagation results.
-
Natural metric-affine inflation: reloaded
mentions it
It cites Planck among observations supporting large-scale cosmic uniformity.
-
Supermassive Dark Stars and Their Remnants as a Possible Solution to Three Recent Cosmic Dawn Puzzles
mentions it (uncertain)
The fragment includes the reference without making its role clear.
-
Effect of post-recombination accretion on primordial binary black hole mergers within virialized dark matter halos
mentions it (uncertain)
The sentence discusses an instantaneous halo-virialization approximation without specifying a role for the Planck results.
-
GraphShed: A Data-derived Graph-based Watershed Group-finder
mentions it
It names Planck as a source of cosmological parameters used in simulations displaying the cosmic web.
-
Shadow of a noncommutative thin-shell gravastar
mentions it (uncertain)
It includes the reference in background discussion of evidence for accelerated cosmic expansion.
See a complete example, explained step by step →
