Quick, early-stage literature scanning. It saves time with summaries, but I treat it as a mapping tool, not a replacement for reading the originals.
Great for visualizing citation networks and exploring a fieldβs landscape, but it works best when you already have a seed paper to start from.
A solid free academic search engine with helpful AI features, though its coverage feels stronger in STEM than in humanities or social sciences.
Very useful for seeing whether a paper is supported or criticized by others, but I still double-check because the classifications arenβt always perfect.
Excellent for quickly understanding a research area from one key paper, though the free version is quite limited.
Helpful for tracking how a field evolves over time, but it takes some effort to learn the interface and set it up well.
Great for open, large-scale academic data exploration, though itβs clearly more for researchers than for casual users.
Useful for quick, evidence-based answers to research questions, but complex topics often get oversimplified.
Good for fast fact-finding with sources, but since it mixes web and academic content, Iβm cautious about using it for serious research.
Good for highlighting and source-checking web content, though itβs more for general research than academic literature.
Very helpful for asking questions directly about a PDF, though I never fully trust it without checking the original text.
Great for rapid screening of many papers, but the summaries can feel too surface-level for deeper understanding.
Nice for simplifying difficult paragraphs, but it works better for small sections than for understanding a whole paper.
Useful for quick, interactive reading, but long or complex papers often get oversimplified.
Good for quick Q&A with PDFs, but it can miss nuances in longer or more technical papers.
Interesting for working with multiple documents at once, though it still feels more experimental than research-focused.
Nice for getting references while writing, though Iβm cautious about uploading drafts and trusting the recommendations too much.
Great for managing systematic review screening, but itβs more about workflow than about AI-driven insight.
I like that it explains why papers are related, but it still feels like an emerging tool with limited coverage.