Built on open scholarly data

Does your source
actually say that?

In-Cite reads the paper and tells you, before your reviewer does.

Paste a sentence from your draft and the source it cites. In-Cite finds the passage, rules on whether it holds the claim up, and shows you the evidence. Around that check sits the rest of the work: free search across 250M+ scholarly works, citations built from publisher metadata, and drafting tools that cannot invent a reference because they only use what you saved.

No account needed for your first two rulings · Free forever for search and citations · No fabricated references

Every ruling shows the passage it rests on Citations from real metadata, never generated 250M+ works indexed Free search with a free account

What a check looks like

A verdict, the passage, and what to do about it

Three rulings, three different problems. This is the whole product in one screen.

SUPPORTED

Distributed practice produces better long-term retention than massed practice.

Source given: Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer (2006), Psychological Bulletin

The synthesis reports a consistent advantage for distributed practice on delayed tests, which is exactly the direction and scope of your sentence.

Cite as written.

PARTIALLY SUPPORTED

Spacing practice doubles long-term retention.

Source given: Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer (2006), Psychological Bulletin

The direction holds, the multiplier does not. The size of the benefit depends on the gap between sessions and on how long after study you are tested, so a single figure misstates what the review found.

Drop "doubles", or move the number to a study that reports it.

NOT SUPPORTED

Learners who study in their preferred learning style retain more.

Source given: Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer & Bjork (2008), Psychological Science in the Public Interest

This source argues the opposite: it reviews the evidence for matching instruction to learning styles and reports that the studies meeting its criteria did not find the predicted benefit.

The citation contradicts the claim. Rewrite the sentence or remove it.

Example rulings, shortened for this page. In the app each one opens the passage it is based on, in the source itself. Run your own →

How it works

From a question to a draft you can defend

1

Search

Type a topic or paste a DOI. Results come from the open index of the world's research, with open-access flags and citation counts.

2

Save & cite

One click turns any result into a correct citation in Cite Them Right, APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago, Turabian, Harvard, IEEE, Vancouver, MHRA or BibTeX, built from the publisher's own metadata.

3

Write

Draft with your library attached. The writing tools cite from the sources you actually saved, so a reference that was never retrieved cannot appear in your text.

4

Check

Run your boldest sentences through Claim Check before you submit. Fix the two that don't hold, and cite the rest with confidence.

We don’t publish invented testimonials. Real ones go here as researchers send them, with their permission. Judge the tool instead — check a claim.

Start with one sentence you're not sure about.

Two rulings, no account, no card. If it earns its place, a free account gets you five every month and search stays free forever.

Check a claim free