Thesify.ai

The reviewer reads your draft the way a referee would and reports on argument, methodology, evidence, structure, and clarity. Each finding carries a severity grade, so a broken method section surfaces above a clumsy transition. You get the full report as a PDF you can annotate and file with your submission materials.

A chat panel sits beside the report and breaks vague comments into concrete steps. Ask why a paragraph was flagged and you get the reasoning plus a direction to fix it, which matters more for a first-time author than a grade alone. It's closer to office hours than to a grammar checker.

The journal recommender ranks venues against your manuscript by topical fit, impact factor, and selectivity. Each entry carries the details you need to judge whether a desk rejection is likely, including scope notes and review timelines where available. You stop working from a list of journal names copied off a colleague's whiteboard.

Highlight a sentence and the AI citation finder searches an index of 200 million peer-reviewed articles, then shows the full record so you can confirm the source exists before citing it. That fixes the worst failure mode of general chatbots, which invent plausible-looking references that collapse under an editor's check.

Coauthor runs guided agents for literature search, outlining, and revision, which covers most of the AI research writing loop. The agents read the PDFs you upload, so suggestions come from your sources rather than from generic training data. Every change arrives as a tracked suggestion, and a rich-text or LaTeX editor handles the writing itself.

Each passage records whether a person or an agent produced it, and you can export an AI disclosure report matched to your target venue's policy. Snapshots save automatically and again before a large agent edit, so a bad revision is one click away from being undone. For labs worried about integrity rules, this is the feature that makes the rest usable.