Learn

Step-by-step workflows and tool comparisons for using AI at every stage of the research process.

Tutorials

Literature Review⏱ 45 minutes

Using Deep Research (OpenAI) for a Rapid Literature Scan

A step-by-step workflow for using OpenAI's Deep Research to produce a cited landscape overview in 20–30 minutes, followed by a verification pass to catch hallucinations before you build on the output.

Tools: Deep Research (OpenAI), Elicit, Zotero
Data Analysis⏱ Ongoing — integrate into your existing coding workflow; 1–2 days to establish habits

Using AI to Write and Debug Research Code

How to use AI coding assistants to write data processing scripts, debug error messages, translate analyses between languages, and document code — with guidance on verifying AI-generated code before using results in a paper.

Tools: Claude, GitHub Copilot
Writing & Revision⏱ Varies by task — 15 minutes for a paragraph revision, 1–2 hours to work through a full draft section

Using AI for Academic Writing and Revision

How to use AI assistants responsibly for academic writing tasks: structural feedback on drafts, clarity editing, simplifying jargon-heavy explanations, and generating abstract variants — with guidance on where to draw the disclosure line.

Tools: Claude, ChatGPT
Domain Discovery⏱ 30–60 minutes for your first prediction; ongoing as needed

Predicting Protein Structure with the AlphaFold Server

A practical walkthrough of submitting a protein structure prediction job through the AlphaFold Server, interpreting the confidence scores in the output, and knowing when to trust the result — and when not to.

Tools: AlphaFold
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis⏱ 1–2 weeks (ongoing use, not a single session)

Structuring a PhD Literature Review with Elicit and Semantic Scholar

A structured workflow for using Elicit and Semantic Scholar together to find, screen, and extract from a large literature — built around the specific demands of a PhD-level review rather than a quick search.

Tools: Elicit, Semantic Scholar, NotebookLM, Zotero
Data Analysis⏱ 30 minutes to first chart; 2–4 hours for a full exploratory session

Using Julius AI for Exploratory Data Analysis

How to upload a dataset to Julius AI, use natural language to run descriptive statistics, generate visualizations, and identify patterns worth investigating — with notes on verifying the code it writes.

Tools: Julius AI, Zotero
Writing & Revision⏱ 30 minutes to read; ongoing practice

Using Claude and ChatGPT Effectively for Scientific Writing

A practical guide to using large language models for scientific writing tasks — covering what they genuinely help with, where they introduce risk, and how to prompt them to get useful output rather than generic text.

Tools: Claude, ChatGPT
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis⏱ 1–2 hours

Using NotebookLM to Synthesize a Reading List

A practical workflow for uploading a paper collection to NotebookLM, asking targeted questions across sources, and building a working synthesis — without reading every paper in full before knowing what matters.

Tools: NotebookLM, Zotero, Semantic Scholar
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis⏱ 1–3 hours for an orientation session

Using Perplexity for Background Research Before a Literature Review

How to use Perplexity to rapidly orient yourself in an unfamiliar research area — building a conceptual map, identifying key terms, and finding the primary sources worth reading — before committing to a full literature search.

Tools: Perplexity
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis⏱ 2–4 hours for initial map; ongoing as the review develops

Mapping a Research Field with Semantic Scholar and ResearchRabbit

A practical workflow for combining Semantic Scholar's search with ResearchRabbit's citation network visualization to rapidly build a comprehensive map of a research field — identifying the landmark papers, key authors, and active frontiers.

Tools: Semantic Scholar, ResearchRabbit, Zotero
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis⏱ Setup: 1–2 hours. Screening itself: depends on record volume and inclusion criteria.

Title and Abstract Screening for a Systematic Review Using Rayyan

A step-by-step guide to importing search results from Scopus or PubMed into Rayyan, configuring blind dual-review, using AI suggestions to prioritize screening, and resolving conflicts — producing a PRISMA-compliant screened record set.

Tools: Rayyan, Scopus, Elicit, Zotero
Writing & Reference Management⏱ 2–3 hours to set up; pays off across months of use

Setting Up a Zotero + AI Annotation Workflow

How to use Zotero as the foundation of a research reading system, combine it with AI tools for synthesis, and maintain a citation library that actually stays organized.

Tools: Zotero, NotebookLM, Semantic Scholar
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis⏱ 1–2 days (vs. 1–2 weeks manually)

Running a Systematic Literature Review with AI: A Step-by-Step Workflow

A practical step-by-step workflow for using AI tools to accelerate systematic literature reviews — from initial discovery through structured extraction, synthesis, and reference management.

Tools: Semantic Scholar, Elicit, NotebookLM, Zotero

Tool Comparisons

Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis

Academic Literature Databases: OpenAlex vs. Semantic Scholar vs. Scopus

A practical comparison of three major academic literature databases — covering coverage, cost, API access, and which one fits different research use cases, including free alternatives to institutional subscriptions.

Last verified: September 2026
Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis

AI Research Agents Compared: Deep Research vs. Perplexity Pro vs. Elicit

Three different tools all claim to help researchers find and synthesize literature — but they work very differently. Deep Research writes a report from web sources; Perplexity answers questions with inline citations; Elicit extracts structured data from academic databases. Here is when to use each.

Last verified: September 2026
Data Analysis

AI for Research Data Analysis: Julius AI vs. ChatGPT vs. R/Python

A practical comparison of three approaches to AI-assisted research data analysis — covering when natural-language tools are genuinely useful, when they aren't, and how to combine them with a traditional coding workflow.

Last verified: September 2026
Writing & Revision

ChatGPT vs. Claude for Academic Research Writing

A practical comparison of the two most widely used AI writing assistants in academic research — covering where each one excels, honest limitations, and when to use one over the other.

Last verified: September 2026
Reference Management

Zotero vs. Mendeley vs. Paperpile: Choosing a Reference Manager

Zotero is open-source and free with the richest plugin ecosystem; Mendeley is polished and Elsevier-integrated but raises data ownership concerns; Paperpile is the cleanest Google Docs integration but requires a paid subscription. This comparison covers the practical differences that affect daily research workflows.

Last verified: September 2026