Researchers writing scientific articles summarize their work in the abstracts mentioning the final outcome of their study. Argumentation mining can be used to extract the claim of the researchers as well as the evidence that could support their claim. The rapid growth of scientific articles demands automated tools that could help in the detection and evaluation of the scientific claims’ veracity. However, there are neither a lot of studies focusing on claim identification and verification neither a lot of annotated corpora available to effectively train deep learning models. For this reason, we annotated two argument mining corpora and perform several experiments with state-of-the-art BERT-based models aiming to identify and verify scientific claims. We find that using SciBERT provides optimal results regardless of the dataset. Furthermore, increasing the amount of training data can improve the performance of every model we used. These findings highlight the need for large-scale argument mining corpora, as well as domain-specific pre-trained models.