AI tutor in a first-year statistics course
A 2023 controlled study of 180 university students reports achievement and engagement outcomes.
Literature review expert guideMaster’s · PhD · Research
Find the review method your question needs.
Start with what you need to understand—not a method name. LitWise turns your research intent, discipline, and evidence into a defensible review pathway.
- 14
- review methods explained
- 09
- discipline families mapped
- 05
- decisions to a starting method
Choose your entry point
Start from where you are now.
You do not need to read this guide from top to bottom. Choose the situation that is closest to yours and move to the next useful decision.
A
I have not started yet
I have a topic or a rough idea, but I do not know which review method fits it.
Choose a review method→BI already have papers
My PDFs and notes are growing, and I need a traceable way to organise the work.
Follow the workflow→CI need field-specific guidance
I need to know which sources, standards, journals, and methods matter in my discipline.
Explore my discipline→DI need practical tools
I am ready to search, screen, appraise, extract, analyse, or start writing.
Open the toolkit→01 · Guided pathway
Make the method decision in five clear steps.
Use this as a starting hypothesis. Confirm the final design with your supervisor, advisory committee, or review team.
Step 1 of 5 · Research intent
What are you trying to understand?
Choose the closest intent. A useful method begins with the decision your review must support.
02 · Method library
Compare the logic—not only the labels.
The fields shown are common examples, not restrictions. Let the research question, evidence, and intended synthesis determine the final method.
Compare before choosing
Put up to three review methods side by side.
A familiar name is not enough. Compare the claim, workload, team, output, and reporting expectations before committing.
Select methods to compare0/3 selected
Choose at least two methods to reveal the comparison table.
03 · Discipline atlas
Enter through your field. Then follow the question.
Every discipline has its own evidence culture. Select a field to see its common questions, sources, methods, and caution points.
04 · Before the search
Write these four sentences before opening a database.
- 01What is this review intended to accomplish?
State whether you need to summarize knowledge, compare findings, explain a phenomenon, identify a gap, or plan the next study.
- 02The review includes evidence about…
Define people, phenomena, concepts, settings, dates, and boundaries.
- 03I will judge evidence by…
Choose quality criteria that match each study design and knowledge claim.
- 04The final contribution will be…
State whether you need an estimate, map, explanation, theory, or agenda.
“The method is justified by the question, evidence, and intended claim.”LitWise decision principle
05 · Execute the review
Execute your review in six traceable phases.
Each phase should leave an artefact that another researcher—or your future self—can inspect.
- 02
Search
Translate the question into concepts, synonyms, sources, and a reproducible search log.
Leave behind- Concept blocks
- Piloted strategies
- Search log
Decision gateDo known sentinel papers appear, and is every search reproducible?
- 03
Screen
Apply eligibility rules consistently and preserve the reason for every exclusion.
Leave behind- Deduplicated library
- Screening decisions
- Flow counts
Decision gateWould two reviewers interpret the criteria in the same way?
- 04
Appraise
Judge the kind and strength of claim each source can support.
Leave behind- Appraisal records
- Risk-of-bias judgements
- Evidence limitations
Decision gateIs the tool appropriate to the study design and review purpose?
- 05
Extract
Capture comparable evidence without stripping away context needed for synthesis.
Leave behind- Extraction form
- Evidence matrix
- Audit notes
Decision gateCan every synthesized claim be traced back to a source location?
- 06
Write
Build an argument that connects findings, uncertainty, limitations, and contribution.
Leave behind- Synthesis structure
- Tables or maps
- Reporting checklist
Decision gateDoes the conclusion stay inside the evidence and protocol boundaries?
06 · Guided practice
Build the artefacts, not just the vocabulary.
Use these client-side tools to rehearse decisions and create copy-ready working notes. Your checklist stays in this browser; no research data is uploaded.
Saved only in this browser
My review project
A progress checklist for the minimum traceable workflow. Completion is a reminder—not a quality score.
0%0/12 completed
01
Question framework builder
What do you want this review to answer? Choose the goal closest to your project. We will suggest a question framework, show a complete example, and give you fields for your own topic. Adapt the wording and scope to your discipline.
What kind of answer are you looking for?
View a completed examplePICOPopulation · Intervention · Comparison · Outcome
- Population or problem
- First-year university students
- Method, programme, or option
- Flipped-classroom teaching
- What it is compared with
- Lecture-based teaching
- Outcome of interest
- Achievement and classroom engagement
Question produced from this example
Among first-year university students, does flipped-classroom teaching improve achievement and classroom engagement compared with lecture-based teaching?
Suggested starting frameworkPICOPopulation · Intervention · Comparison · OutcomeA focused question comparing effects or outcomes
Question draft
Among [population], how does [intervention], compared with [comparison], affect [outcome]?
02
Screening calibration lab
Apply one example protocol to six records. At title/abstract stage, uncertainty normally moves forward instead of becoming an early exclusion.
0/6correct decisions
Why universities should embrace AI tutors
A 2024 editorial argues for adoption but reports no empirical study or learner outcome.
Adaptive tutoring in formal education
The abstract reports learning gains but does not identify whether participants were school or university students.
Generative tutoring for grade 8 mathematics
A 2022 school study reports test performance among 13–14 year-old pupils.
Protocol for evaluating a university AI tutor
A 2025 protocol describes planned outcomes but contains no results.
AI feedback assistant in postgraduate writing
A mixed-methods university study reports engagement but it is unclear whether the system provides tutoring or only administrative feedback.
03
PRISMA flow planner
Enter counts to check arithmetic and produce a copy-ready selection summary. This planning aid does not replace the official PRISMA 2020 diagram or its instructions.
Selection counts
Derived flow
Records identified0↓
Removed before screening0↓
Records screened0↓
Reports sought0↓
Reports assessed0↓
Studies included0
Open official PRISMA flow diagrams07 · Research toolkit
Move from advice to working research artefacts.
Copy a starter, adapt it to your discipline, and preserve the decisions that make your review auditable.
Boolean search canvas
Build one block per concept. Add synonyms with OR; connect concepts with AND; add controlled vocabulary inside each database.
("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR AI)
AND
(education OR teaching OR learning)
AND
(ethics OR bias OR fairness)Search the right fields
Use database field tags such as title/abstract or TITLE-ABS-KEY when an all-fields search returns too much noise.
Use truncation carefully
A wildcard can capture useful word endings, but test every truncated term so it does not retrieve unrelated words.
Test proximity operators
When a database supports NEAR, W/n, or an equivalent operator, use it to keep related concepts close without requiring an exact phrase.
AI-assisted research
AI prompt lab
Use AI to expand, compare, and challenge your thinking while keeping every scholarly decision and source check with the researcher.
A reliable research prompt names four things
- 01Context
Topic, discipline, purpose, and the material available.
- 02Task
One concrete job for the AI to help with.
- 03Evidence rules
What it may use, must verify, and must not invent.
- 04Output
A structure that makes gaps and uncertainty visible.
Choose a research task
Copy-ready prompt
Expand search vocabulary
Turning a topic into concept blocks, synonyms, spelling variants, and terms to test in databases.
Context:
I am reviewing [topic] in [discipline, population, or setting]. My current question is [question or decision].
Task:
Help me build vocabulary for a reproducible database search. Separate the question into concept blocks and propose synonyms, acronyms, spelling variants, broader terms, and narrower terms for each block.
Evidence rules:
- Do not present a term as an official subject heading unless it has been checked in the named database thesaurus.
- Separate natural-language keywords from controlled-vocabulary candidates that I still need to verify.
- Flag terms likely to retrieve irrelevant results and explain why.
- Do not claim that the list is complete.
Output:
Create a table with: concept block | keywords and variants | controlled terms to verify | likely noise. Then draft Boolean blocks, clearly marking any syntax that must be adapted for [database].Choose appraisal by evidence design
The design of the included study—not the prestige of its journal—determines the appraisal lens.
| Evidence design | Inspect | Possible starting tool |
|---|---|---|
| Randomized intervention | Randomization, deviations, missing outcomes, measurement, reporting | RoB 2 or a field-equivalent tool |
| Non-randomized intervention | Confounding, selection, classification, deviations, missingness | ROBINS-I or a field-equivalent tool |
| Qualitative study | Fit, recruitment, reflexivity, analysis, context, credibility | CASP, JBI, or a discipline-appropriate tool |
| Mixed-methods study | Quality of each component and the logic of integration | MMAT or design-specific tools plus integration appraisal |
| Systematic review | Protocol, search, selection, appraisal, synthesis, bias | AMSTAR 2 or a purpose-appropriate review tool |
Research tool directory
Choose tools by the job they must do. For literature searching, combine a broad index with the databases that matter in your discipline; confirm institutional access and record every source, query, filter, and search date.
View the source listSearch tools were checked against official provider documentation; additional workflow tools were identified from the Effortless Academic list and linked to their official sites.Reference management
Collect, deduplicate, annotate, and cite without losing the source trail.
Zotero
Free core · paid storageA strong default for most students and research teams, with browser capture and an open ecosystem.
Agree on collections, tags, and attachment storage before collaborating.Mendeley Reference Manager
FreeResearchers who want a straightforward PDF library and citation workflow.
Check export and collaboration needs before committing a large shared library.EndNote
Paid · institutional access may applyLabs and institutions that already use EndNote styles, libraries, and support.
Check whether your university already provides a licence before purchasing.Bibliome
One-time purchase · macOSResearchers who want a local, searchable PDF library with on-device organisation and iCloud-based syncing.
It is currently Apple-platform focused; confirm import, citation, and collaboration requirements before moving your main library.Scholarly search engines & citation indexes
Search papers, theses, books, proceedings, and citation records across disciplines; use more than one source when coverage affects the conclusion.
Google Scholar Labs Search
Experimental Google Scholar feature · availability may varyExploring a research question in natural language and using the resulting papers as leads for a preliminary search.
Treat it as an experiment, not a protocol search; save the cited papers and rerun key concepts in standard databases.Google Scholar
Free · full-text access variesA broad first pass across articles, theses, books, repositories, citations, and related works.
Coverage and ranking are not transparent, only the first 1,000 results are shown, and bulk export is unavailable; do not use it as the only systematic-review source.Semantic Scholar
Free · account optionalSearching across disciplines, filtering results, and following citations or influential references.
AI ranking and citation labels assist discovery but do not establish completeness, relevance, or study quality.OpenAlex
Open data · free web searchSearching and filtering a large open catalog of works, authors, institutions, topics, and citation links.
Metadata and automated topic labels can be incomplete or incorrect; verify the publication and DOI at the source.Crossref Metadata Search
Free · open metadataFinding or verifying a DOI and bibliographic metadata when a citation is incomplete.
Crossref searches deposited metadata rather than the full scholarly literature; use it for record verification, not as the sole topical database.CORE
Free · open-access focusFinding open-access copies aggregated from repositories and journals.
Repository metadata and versions vary; check whether you are reading a preprint, accepted manuscript, or version of record.OpenAIRE Explore
Free · open research infrastructureDiscovering linked publications, datasets, software, projects, and grants, especially in open-science workflows.
Coverage follows contributing sources and deduplication; verify identifiers and the authoritative record.Lens
Guest search + free account features · institutional tiersConnecting scholarly works with citations, patents, saved searches, and alerts.
Patent links and citation counts answer a different question from study quality; document filters and export limits.Dimensions
Free personal non-commercial tier · paid plansConnecting publications with grants, datasets, patents, clinical trials, and policy documents.
Features and export limits vary by tier; record the version and filters used.Scopus
Institutional subscription · limited free PreviewCurated multidisciplinary searching, citation tracking, author profiles, and export for evidence or bibliometric work.
Check institutional access and indexed-source coverage; absence from Scopus does not mean the work does not exist.Web of Science
Institutional subscriptionCurated citation searching across sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, books, and proceedings.
Specify the exact Web of Science collection and coverage dates; do not generalize beyond the indexes searched.Field databases & open repositories
Search more deeply with field vocabularies, subject coverage, open collections, and preprint repositories.
PubMed
FreeBiomedical, health, and life-science literature using MEDLINE records, MeSH, and precise field searching.
PubMed is not a full-text database and does not cover every health-related source; supplement it where the protocol requires.ERIC
FreeEducation research, reports, policy documents, and searches using the ERIC Thesaurus.
Use peer-reviewed and full-text filters deliberately; inclusion in ERIC does not replace appraisal.arXiv
Free · preprintsRecent work in physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative fields, and related disciplines.
Preprints may not be peer reviewed and may later change; check for the published version and record the version and date used.DOAJ
Free · open-access indexFinding peer-reviewed open-access journals and article records across languages and regions.
DOAJ evaluates journal inclusion, not the validity of every individual study; appraise each paper.IEEE Xplore / ACM Digital Library
Search available · full text often institutionalEngineering, electrical technology, computing, and conference literature.
Search both when computing and engineering overlap; adapt the syntax and check conference-versus-journal versions.JSTOR / Project MUSE
Search available · full-text access variesHumanities and social sciences, including journal archives and scholarly books.
Coverage and date depth differ; combine them with library catalogs and field indexes for comprehensive searches.AI-assisted discovery & paper reading
Expand from seed papers, inspect citation context, and question documents without treating AI summaries or rankings as a reproducible database search.
Liner
Free + paid plansAI-assisted web and scholarly search, source collection, and early exploration of a research question.
Open the cited publication and verify every claim; an AI answer is not a reproducible database search.Keenious
Free + paid and institutional plansDiscovering related literature from a question, passage, or manuscript while exploring topics across disciplines.
Record which query or document produced the recommendations and supplement discovery with discipline databases.Iris.ai
Paid · trial or institutional access may applyExploring a topic around a seed paper and grouping related research into concepts or themes.
Treat topic maps as leads rather than evidence of complete coverage; inspect the underlying papers and search boundaries.Elicit
Free + paid plansFinding papers and building a structured evidence table for rapid orientation and extraction support.
Audit extracted fields against the full text and do not assume its corpus or ranking covers every database required by the protocol.Consensus
Free + paid plansGetting a source-linked overview of how research addresses a plain-language question.
Use it to orient the search, not to replace critical appraisal, comprehensive searching, or reading the cited studies.SciSpace
Free + paid plansSearching literature and asking questions about an individual paper while reading it.
Check answers against the paper's methods, tables, and limitations; do not cite the generated explanation.Sourcely
Free + paid plansFinding candidate sources from a topic or passage and filtering results during exploratory searching.
Log the actual search process separately and verify relevance, publication status, and bibliographic details at the source.Litmaps
Free + paid plansFollowing citation connections from seed papers and monitoring how a literature cluster develops over time.
Citation maps inherit the blind spots of the seed papers; combine them with database and grey-literature searches.Scite
Paid · trial or institutional access may applyInspecting whether later publications support, contrast with, or mention a cited claim.
Citation classification is contextual assistance, not a quality verdict; read the citing passage and both papers.Anara
Free + paid plansSearching across a researcher's own documents and obtaining citation-linked answers from that collection.
Check each cited passage directly and review privacy rules before uploading unpublished, sensitive, or restricted documents.Screening & review management
Remove duplicates, apply eligibility criteria, resolve conflicts, and preserve an audit trail.
Rayyan
Free + paid plansTitle and abstract screening, especially when several reviewers need blinding and conflict resolution.
Free and paid capabilities differ; agree on reviewer roles before inviting the team.ASReview
Free · open sourceLarge screening sets where active learning can prioritise likely-relevant records while humans retain decisions.
Predefine stopping rules and report the model, version, and human decisions transparently.EPPI-Reviewer
Subscription · partner access may applyComplex evidence reviews and maps that need collaborative coding, synthesis, and review management.
It can be more platform than a small thesis needs; check training and access first.Nested Knowledge
Paid · institutional access may applyManaging a systematic review from search and screening through extraction, tagging, and visual synthesis in one workspace.
Confirm export, audit-trail, automation, and protocol requirements before committing the whole review to one platform.Notes, writing & collaboration
Turn reading notes into a shared synthesis and a manuscript that remains maintainable.
Notion / Obsidian
Free core · optional paid servicesLinked notes, concept development, and a durable synthesis workspace before drafting.
Choose Notion for shared work or Obsidian for local files; avoid maintaining the same notes in both.Overleaf
Free + paid plansLaTeX manuscripts, technical theses, and real-time collaboration around journal templates.
Confirm that your supervisor and coauthors are comfortable reviewing LaTeX projects.Google Docs + Paperpile
Docs free · Paperpile paidTeams that already review drafts in Google Docs and want citations inside that workflow.
Decide which reference library is authoritative to prevent duplicate or drifting records.Paperpal
Free + paid plansLanguage editing, academic phrasing, and consistency checks while revising a manuscript.
Accept edits selectively, preserve the intended meaning, and follow journal and university policies on AI-assisted writing.Jenni AI
Free + paid plansDrafting support, revision prompts, and citation suggestions for students and academic writers.
Verify suggested citations in the original source and never let generated prose substitute for your analysis or authorship.WriteWise
Free + paid plansStructuring and polishing academic writing with feedback on clarity, coherence, and style.
Review every change for disciplinary meaning and check current privacy and institutional rules before uploading a manuscript.Livewrite (formerly ReSub)
Paid plansReformatting a manuscript for the requirements of a target journal, especially in medical publishing workflows.
Confirm the generated document against the journal's latest author instructions before submission.Yomu AI
Free + paid plansAn integrated academic writing workspace with drafting, revision, citations, and formatting support.
Run plagiarism and source checks independently and verify every generated citation and factual statement.Analysis & synthesis
Code qualitative findings, calculate pooled estimates, or manage an end-to-end review.
NVivo / ATLAS.ti
Paid · student and institutional optionsSystematic coding of qualitative findings, memos, relationships, and team-based analysis.
Software does not choose a coding logic; define the analytical approach before importing everything.R + metafor
Free · open sourceReproducible meta-analysis, sensitivity checks, and publication-quality statistical outputs.
Use it with statistical supervision when effect measures, dependence, or heterogeneity are complex.Covidence
Paid · often institutionalTeams that want screening, extraction, risk-of-bias work, and exports in one review platform.
Check university access and confirm that its workflow matches your review method before setup.Scientific visuals
Create diagrams or illustrations that communicate methods and findings while keeping the underlying evidence visible.
SciDraw
Free + paid plansTurning prompts, rough sketches, or data into scientific illustrations and explanatory diagrams.
Check scientific accuracy, labels, scale, permissions, and journal image policies; retain the source data and editable original.Copy-ready template
Search log template
Make every database search reproducible.
Database: [name] Platform: [provider] Date searched: [YYYY-MM-DD] Coverage: [start–end] Exact search string: [paste] Filters: [list or none] Results returned: [n] Export file: [name] Notes and changes: [why]
Copy-ready template
Eligibility decision form
Keep screening decisions consistent and explainable.
Study ID: [author-year] Reviewer: [name] Stage: [title/abstract | full text] Decision: [include | exclude | verify details] Criterion triggered: [criterion] Exclusion reason: [one specific reason] Notes: [context or uncertainty]
Copy-ready template
Evidence extraction matrix
Connect study context, design, finding, and quality.
Citation | Country/setting | Aim | Design | Sample/data | Intervention or phenomenon | Outcome/finding | Context | Limitation | Appraisal | Reviewer note
Copy-ready template
One-page protocol starter
Align the team before the search expands.
Decision this review supports: Review question: Review type and rationale: Population/phenomenon: Concept/intervention: Context/comparator: Eligible evidence designs: Sources to search: Appraisal approach: Synthesis approach: Registration/reporting plan: Known constraints:
Six failure modes to catch early
- 01Method-first thinking
Choosing a fashionable label before defining the claim and evidence.
- 02One-database confidence
Treating one index or Google Scholar as complete coverage.
- 03Moving criteria
Changing eligibility after seeing results without documenting the decision.
- 04Tool mismatch
Using one appraisal checklist for unlike study designs.
- 05Spreadsheet amnesia
Keeping findings without page, table, or quotation traceability.
- 06Conclusion inflation
Making causal or universal claims that the included evidence cannot support.
Official reporting resources
Guidelines evolve. Confirm the current version and the requirements of your target journal or institution.
Supplement
Statistical test chooser for research data
Use this supplement only after you have defined the research question, study design, and data types. It supports the choice of an analysis method; it is not a core step in conducting a literature review.
What does your research question ask?
Browse all 14 techniquesYou can open a technique directly if you already know what you need.+
Ready to begin?