There are a growing number of AI tools available to support different parts of the literature-based research process, including generating new keyword ideas, providing context for citations, summarizing sources, and creating visualizations of the connections between sources. We chose to review tools that fit the following criteria:
Our rating of these tools included considerations of their usefulness and transparency.
As the AI tools landscape is fast-changing, we will work to keep this table up-to-date, but feel free to contact us with corrections or to ask more questions.
Table last edited on October 21, 2025
| Scite | Consensus | Elicit | Semantic Scholar | Lateral | Research Rabbit | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access & Fees |
OSU Libraries has a subscription to Scite for the 2025-2026 academic year. OSU users need to create a free account (use your ONID/Google account) to access all of Scite's features. See more detailed information about logging in and using Scite on this guide. |
OSU Libraries has a subscription to Consensus for the 2025-2026 academic year. OSU users need to create a free account (use an @oregonstate.edu address) to access Consensus' Pro features. See more detailed information about logging in and using Consensus on this guide. |
OSU Libraries has a subscription to Elicit's Plus version for the 2025-2026 academic year. OSU users need to create a free account (use an @oregonstate.edu address) to access Elicit's Plus features. See more detailed information about logging in and using Elicit on this guide. |
Free |
500 page uploads free ~$15/month for premium,1800 "page credits" per month (roughly 90 article uploads) |
Free |
| Role in literature review |
Search: comprehensive search with brief article summaries, many refining options, and smart citation metrics Assistant: conversational-style search provides an overall summary of a topic with references and smart citation metrics Tables: create a comparison table based on search criteria |
Synthesizes the literature and provides a narrative overview, tabular summaries, and a "consensus meter" to indicate how much agreement there is on a topic. Also can perform deep searches that create a report with a summary, an overview of research gaps, indications of the consensus on the topic across the field, and clickable links to the literature included in the report. |
Generates a matrix based on literature characteristics | Generates article summaries; suggests related articles based on textual analysis | Lateral searching of uploaded journal articles by concept | Citation-based literature mapping for article discovery |
| Features |
Provides context to citations - indicates whether citations are used to support, contrast, or mention the original work. Allows for search results filtering by criteria like journal, MeSH, and article section. Creates a matrix of literature based on user-specified criteria like population or methods. |
Synthesizes up to 20 papers using narrative summaries, bulleted lists, or tables. Creates an overview of the consensus on research questions Allows for filtering by journal quartile and methods used. Includes easy links to full-text of articles OSU Libraries subscribes to. |
Summarizes papers Creates a research matrix with customizable columns to compare content (e.g., sample size, methods) |
Summarizes papers Recommends papers based on relevance Sends related alerts alerts and suggests related articles based on citations or related topics
|
Search across all uploaded papers simultaneously Creates a matrix of collected passages from uploaded papers along with your notes Searches for relevant concepts across papers |
Recommendations based on collections of papers or individuals Visualizes connections between papers and generates exportable bibliographies Custom email alerts for collected papers |
| Drawbacks |
Hallucinations do occur. There are many features, which can result in a somewhat higher learning curve. You can't upload or select a discrete list of journals for Scite to search. |
Consensus can sometimes "misread" sources and create incorrect summary. Most effective for researchers in biomedical, social sciences, and other more STEM-based fields. |
Most effective for researchers in fields using empirical research, as the matrix generated draws on data and questions commonly generated in these types of sources. Sources generated for concept searches are not linked in the free version, making it difficult to track where in those sources the information is coming from. |
Potential text hallucinations: may include "serious factual errors"; full-text options are limited; basic search interface |
Upload page counts could be limiting Have to provide the papers yourself |
Paper access still dependent on institutional accounts |
| Privacy | Tracks your data across websites visited. | Your data is not used for training AI models, and they do not store personally identifiable information. | Collects personal information you disclose upon registering, anonymized device and usage information, uses cookies. Has achieved SOC 2 Type II Level of security and trust. Doesn't use your data for training. Read more at their "Trust Center" about their efforts to protect privacy and security. | Collects personal information and browsing information, uses cookies; does allow for opt out of publishing input data | Collects personal information upon registering, as well as tool usage information; data you upload for usage by the tool remains private | Collects personal information you provide |
| Data sources |
Abstracts from Semantic Scholar (200M papers) Full-text from OA articles Citation statements from non-OA articles (under publisher agreements) CrossRef |
Abstracts from Semantic Scholar (200M papers) OpenAlex Their own "crawl of the scholarly web" |
Abstracts from Semantic Scholar (200M+ papers) Full-text from OA articles from sources like OpenAlex, PubMed, and ACS. Also searches clinical trials on clinicaltrials.gov. |
200M+ abstracts and OA material from 50+ publishers | Proprietary | Originally based on Microsoft Academic Graph, current data sources include Semantic Scholar and PubMed |
| Number of references included in summary | Varies by search, but often 25-60 (this is an adjustable setting) | Up to 20 | 8 with the Plus version | NA | NA | NA |
|
Reference management and integration |
a Zotero plugin is also available Upload Zotero or Mendeley collections via the dashboard feature |
Can export to Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote. | Can import sources from Zotero | Exports to reference managers; no direct integration | Exports to reference managers; no direct integration | Zotero integration |
| Save search/research progress | Yes, and can create dashboards and saved searches | Yes, and create research folders with saved searches and papers. | Chat history auto saves, you can also create a research notebook | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Share with others | Can export as a CSV or a TXT; from a dashboard you can export as RIS | Yes, can share links of search results. | Exporting is available to Plus users | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Allows prompt searching | Yes - assistant mode | Yes, allows for threaded searching. | Yes | Ask This Paper feature generates text about paper contents (only available for free PDFs) | No | No |
| OSU Librarians' Rating (based on a 5-star system) |
4 stars out of 5 Provides extensive functionality, but the different functions can also feel busy. Smart citations are an interesting idea, but the article sections most cited often skew to the Abstract and Intro. Clear connections to OSU Libraries full-text or borrowing options. Hallucinations are still an issue |
4.5 stars out of 5 Synthesized outputs are interesting, and the Consensus Meter is a novel approach. Links to the sources used in the summary are easy to find. Clear connections to OSU Libraries full-text or borrowing options. The deep search shows promise for streamlining literature searching and finding research gaps.
|
4 stars out of 5 comparison table is a helpful addition to the lit review process; summaries lack nuance and focus on findings |
2 stars out of 5 The focus on abstracts and OA articles limits the tool's most potentially transformative features. Compare searches to Google Scholar. However, the related articles may be worth a look. |
4 stars out of 5 If the user has already found the literature they want to review, this tool offers significant time savings in understanding and placing specific papers within the greater body of work they're investigating |
3.5 stars out of 5 Ease of use in mapping out and discovering connections between papers makes this tool a worthwhile addition; does sometimes make spurious connections |
This table was inspired by Aster Zhao's Comparison of GenAI Tools LibGuide from The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology CC-BY 4.0.
For information and a comparison of more generative AI tools, visit the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Library's comprehensive table of tools.
