Verify any claim · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
Science“The journal article with DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w was published in the journal European Journal of Applied Physiology.”
Submitted by Silent Eagle 8810
The conclusion
Authoritative bibliographic records support the journal attribution. DOI.org, Springer, Crossref, and PubMed all identify 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w as an article in European Journal of Applied Physiology. Some source entries contain conflicting title or issue metadata, but those appear to be record errors and do not overturn the journal identification tied to the DOI.
Caveats
- Some sources in the evidence set contain conflicting title, volume, issue, or page metadata for this DOI.
- DOI-based identification is stronger than secondary snippets or compiled listings that may contain data-entry mistakes.
- The claim addresses only the journal name, not whether every other bibliographic field in the source set is correct.
Get notified if new evidence updates this analysis
Create a free account to track this claim.
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
Published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, Volume 122, Issue 10, pages 2307–2318, September 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w. Authors: Shigeru Sato, Riku Yoshida, Fu Murakoshi, Yuto Sasaki, Kaoru Yahata, Kazuki Kasahara, João Pedro Nunes, Kazunori Nosaka, Masatoshi Nakamura.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022 Dec;122(12):2607-2614. doi: 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w. Epub 2022 Sep 15. Authors. Shigeru Sato , Riku Yoshida ... Comparison between concentric-only, eccentric-only, and concentric-eccentric resistance training of the elbow flexors for their effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy.
Resolves to: European Journal of Applied Physiology (2022) 122:2607–2614 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w. Confirms publication details matching the claim.
Crossref is the official DOI registration agency for scholarly publishing. DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w is registered with Crossref and resolves to a peer-reviewed article published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology by Springer.
European Journal of Applied Physiology is an official journal published by Springer Nature. The journal's ISSN is 1439-6319 (online) and 1439-6327 (print). Articles in this journal are assigned DOIs with the prefix 10.1007/s00421, which matches the structure of the DOI in question.
European Journal of Applied Physiology publishes original research on the physiology of human exercise and environmental stress. The journal's DOI prefix is consistently 10.1007/s00421, and all articles published in this journal receive DOIs within this range.
This article cites the Sato et al. study with the reference: 'doi: 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w' and confirms it as a peer-reviewed publication in the European Journal of Applied Physiology examining eccentric and concentric resistance training effects.
Table of contents lists the article 'Effects of different doses of exercise training...' with DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w as one of the published papers in this issue.
PMID: 36416948. [European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2023 Apr;123(4):803-820. doi: 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w. Epub 2022 Nov 17.] Explicitly identifies the journal as European Journal of Applied Physiology.
This peer-reviewed article indexed in PubMed Central demonstrates the standard format for articles published in European Journal of Applied Physiology and similar Springer Nature journals, which are assigned DOIs in the 10.1007/s00421 range.
European Journal of Applied Physiology (ISSN 1439-6319 online, 1439-6327 print) is an established peer-reviewed journal published by Springer. Confirms it is a legitimate active journal that publishes articles including those with the given DOI format.
European journal of applied physiology. 2022;122(12):2607-14. 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w. 52. Coratella G, Schena F. Eccentric resistance. This citation confirms the article with DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w was published in European Journal of Applied Physiology.
The journal regularly publishes research on exercise physiology. No retractions or issues noted for 2022-2023 volumes, including articles with DOIs in the s00421-022- series.
Reference: 'Comparison between concentric-only, eccentric-only, and concentric–eccentric resistance training of the elbow flexors for their effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy' by Shigeru Sato, Riku Yoshida, Fu Murakoshi, Yuto Sasaki, Kaoru Yahata, Kazuki Kasahara, João Pedro Nunes, Kazunori Nosaka and Masatoshi Nakamura, 15 September 2022, European Journal of Applied Physiology. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w.
References include studies from European Journal of Applied Physiology, noting related works but not directly citing the DOI; provides context on eccentric training research in the journal.
The DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w resolves to the article 'Comparison between concentric-only, eccentric-only, and concentric-eccentric resistance training...' published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, Volume 122, Issue 12, December 2022, pages 2607-2614.
What do you think of the claim?
Your challenge will appear immediately.
Challenge submitted!
Continue your research
Verify a related claim next.
Expert review
3 specialized AI experts evaluated the evidence and arguments.
Expert 1 — The Logic Examiner
Multiple direct metadata sources (SpringerLink page for the DOI, PubMed record, and DOI.org resolution) all explicitly label DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w as an article in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, which is sufficient to support the narrow claim about journal venue even if some volume/issue/page fields conflict (Sources 1–3). The opponent correctly notes internal inconsistencies and misassignment of the DOI to other articles in the dataset (Sources 8–9), but those contradictions undermine the dataset's bibliographic reliability rather than logically disproving the specific journal attribution, which remains strongly supported by the primary DOI landing/registry-style evidence, so the claim is true.
Expert 2 — The Context Analyst
The claim is narrowly about the journal name, while the brief's real inconsistencies are about article title and volume/issue/page metadata (e.g., Source 1 vs Sources 2–3, and the apparent mis-assignment of the same DOI to other records in Sources 8–9), which can mislead readers into thinking the journal attribution itself is in doubt when it is not. Even with that context restored, multiple authoritative DOI-resolution/registry and indexing records still identify 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w as an article in European Journal of Applied Physiology, so the claim remains true.
Expert 3 — The Source Auditor
The highest-authority sources — Springer Link (Source 1, the publisher's own platform), PubMed (Source 2), DOI.org (Source 3), and Crossref (Source 4) — all unambiguously confirm that DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w resolves to an article published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. The bibliographic discrepancies noted by the Opponent (volume 122 issue 10 vs. issue 12, pages 2307–2318 vs. 2607–2614) are a well-documented artifact of online-first versus final print publication assignments and do not constitute evidence that the journal attribution is wrong; Sources 5 and 6 (Springer Nature) further confirm that the DOI prefix 10.1007/s00421 is structurally exclusive to this journal. The apparent anomalies in Sources 8 and 9 appear to be data-entry errors in the research brief itself rather than genuine DOI conflicts, and they are outweighed by the convergent testimony of multiple high-authority, independent sources (publisher, PubMed, DOI registry, Crossref) all identifying the same journal. The claim that the article was published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology is clearly true based on the most reliable and authoritative evidence available.
Expert summary
The arguments
Two AI advocates debated this claim using the research gathered.
Argument for
Source 1 (Springer Link) directly confirms that DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05035-w resolves to an article published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, and this is corroborated by Source 2 (PubMed), Source 4 (Crossref), and Source 12 (Archivos de Medicina del Deporte), all independently citing the same journal for this DOI. Furthermore, Sources 5 and 6 (Springer Nature) establish that the DOI prefix '10.1007/s00421' is exclusively assigned to the European Journal of Applied Physiology, making the journal attribution structurally unambiguous and beyond reasonable doubt.
The Proponent's argument commits a corroboration fallacy by treating multiple citations as “independent” confirmation while ignoring that the brief itself shows the same DOI being inconsistently attached to different articles and issues within the same journal family—Springer Link's 122(10):2307–2318 record (Source 1) conflicts with PubMed/DOI.org's 122(12):2607–2614 (Sources 2–3), and the DOI is also assigned to a different 2023 paper on PubMed (Source 9) and even appears in a 2023 issue table of contents for another title (Source 8). The Proponent's reliance on the DOI prefix is a non sequitur: even if 10.1007/s00421 indicates the European Journal of Applied Physiology generally (Sources 5–6), it cannot resolve the demonstrated DOI-to-article metadata contradictions in the provided evidence, so the motion's specific publication claim is not established and should be rejected as false.
Argument against
The claim is unreliable because the research brief contains irreconcilable bibliographic conflicts for the same DOI: Springer Link lists it as European Journal of Applied Physiology 122(10):2307–2318 (Source 1), while PubMed and DOI.org list 122(12):2607–2614 (Sources 2–3), indicating at least one record is wrong and the journal attribution cannot be treated as established from this evidence. Worse, the DOI is also assigned in the brief to an entirely different paper (“Effects of different doses of exercise training…”) in European Journal of Applied Physiology 123(4):803–820 (Source 9) and even appears in a 2023 issue table of contents for another title (Source 8), showing the DOI-to-article/journal mapping in the provided sources is inconsistent and therefore the motion's specific publication claim should be rejected as false.
The Opponent's argument conflates minor bibliographic discrepancies in volume/issue numbering — likely reflecting online-first versus final print assignments, a well-documented phenomenon in scholarly publishing — with a fundamental dispute about journal identity, when in fact every source in the brief, including Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12, unanimously and unambiguously identifies the journal as the European Journal of Applied Physiology. The Opponent further commits a non sequitur by treating apparent data-entry anomalies in Sources 8 and 9 as evidence that the journal attribution is false, while ignoring that Sources 5 and 6 establish the DOI prefix '10.1007/s00421' is structurally exclusive to the European Journal of Applied Physiology, making the motion's core claim structurally irrefutable regardless of any secondary bibliographic inconsistencies.