AI for professors is most useful on the work that piles up: reading student drafts, writing grant proposals, and checking a manuscript before it goes out. AI for Research gives academics a Reviewer that scores a draft at the right level, a Proposal Studio for grant formats, claim and citation checks for manuscripts, and projects shared with students and co-authors.
Three jobs you can do here
1. Give students structured feedback on drafts
Where your institution allows it, upload a student's chapter to the Reviewer, choose the document type (thesis, proposal or manuscript) and the level (undergraduate, honours, master's or PhD). You get a score out of 10 for each criterion and major and minor comments, each quoting the passage with a suggested fix. Use it as a first read that frees your own reading for the argument. Standard costs 10 credits per 10,000 words.
2. Draft grant proposals in your funder's format
Proposal Studio writes a grant proposal in a generic, NIH, NSF, ERC or Wellcome shape. Paste the call, its criteria and limits, and your idea. A whole draft costs 15 credits; one section (aims, significance, approach, budget justification) costs 3. It also drafts ethics applications (IRB, UK REC, HREC) and data management plans.
3. Check a manuscript before submission
Run Claim check on key paragraphs (2 credits): each claim is labeled supported, partly supported, not supported or no evidence, with the papers. Run the citation check on the reference list (free): it confirms each reference exists and flags retractions, corrections, expressions of concern and wrong years or authors. Then format to the journal: 10,000+ citation styles, Word export, and LaTeX export on paid plans.
How it works, step by step
- Create a project per student, grant or paper. Invite students as Can edit on their own project, co-supervisors as Can comment.
- Review a draft. In the Reviewer, upload the file (PDF or Word), pick My documents, or paste text. Choose type, level and checks, and describe the formatting rules if you want them checked.
- Read the result beside the draft: the scorecard, then major comments, then minor. Copy the comments you agree with into your own feedback.
- Start a grant. In Proposal Studio choose Grant proposal and the funder, paste the call, and run one section or the whole proposal. Open it in the editor.
- Ground the background. Run a Deep report (15 credits) on the gap the grant addresses, save the cited papers, and cite them in the funder's style.
- Check before submitting. Claim check on the significance section, citation check on the reference list, export to Word or LaTeX.
The workspaces you will use
| Workspace | What you do with it | Credits |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer | Feedback on student drafts and your own manuscripts | 10 per 10,000 words (High quality 30, Pro) |
| Proposal Studio | Grant proposals, ethics applications, data management plans | Section 3, whole 15 |
| Citation checker | Claim check; reference check | 2; 0 |
| Deep Research | Background and literature for a grant or paper | 1, 15, 45 (paid) |
| Projects | Shared folders for students and co-authors | 0 |
| Word and LaTeX export | Journal-ready files | 0 (LaTeX on paid plans) |
| Research slides | A talk or lecture deck from a paper or report | 10 |
Which plan fits, and a month worked out
Most academics fit Plus ($12 a month, 750 credits, 10 projects with 3 people each) or Pro ($29 a month, 1,500 credits, unlimited projects with 10 people each, High quality reviews). For a lab, department or writing group, Team gives every member Pro, 2,000 credits a seat a month pooled, shared projects and Library, from 3 seats on one invoice, arranged through sales.
Example month (invented, on Pro): a lecturer supervising four master's students, writing an NIH application and revising a paper.
| Job | How many | Credits |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer, Standard, four 15,000-word master's drafts | 4 × 2 units | 80 |
| Reviewer, Standard, two 8,000-word undergraduate dissertations | 2 × 1 unit | 20 |
| NIH grant proposal, whole draft | 1 | 15 |
| Grant sections rewritten | 6 | 18 |
| Deep reports | 3 | 45 |
| Detailed report | 1 | 45 |
| Summary answers | 20 | 20 |
| Editor checks on the paper (claim check, proofread, tone) | 10 | 20 |
| Lecture slide deck | 1 | 10 |
| Citation check, citations, exports, projects | any | 0 |
| Total | 273 of 1,500 |
The same month fits on Plus; Pro is for the 10-person projects and High quality reviews.
AI-use rules that matter to you
- Peer review. NIH prohibits reviewers from using generative AI to analyze or critique applications, and uploading application content breaches confidentiality [1]. NSF extends reviewers' confidentiality duty to AI tools [2]. Never upload material you are reviewing.
- Grant applications. NIH does not treat applications substantially developed by AI as the applicant's original ideas [3]. NSF says proposers are responsible for AI-assisted content and encourages them to say how AI was used [2].
- Papers. ICMJE asks journals to require disclosure of AI use, and says chatbots cannot be authors and humans are responsible for all content [4].
- Student work. Follow your institution's rules on processing student work with AI, and tell students when you use it.
Rules change: check the funder's or journal's current page before each submission. For a lab policy built on these rules, see AI tools for research labs.
What it does not do
- It does not grade. Scores are feedback, not marks, and the Reviewer can miss problems an expert sees.
- It does not submit to funders or journals, or fill their online forms.
- It does not search Google Scholar, Scopus or Web of Science.
- Team is not self-serve: it is set up through sales.
Who else it is for
Your students may want AI for a master's thesis or AI tools for PhD students. Clinical academics, see AI for medical research.
Preparing a submission? The manuscript formatting tool sets a paper to a journal's style, the conference paper writer drafts a 4 to 8 page paper, and the reporting guideline checker drafts the CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, SAGER or SAMPL checklist. The sources for each discipline are on the field pages, for example engineering and computing and social sciences.
Learn more
- AI tools for research labs
- How to respond to reviewer comments
- AI grant writing
- AI in academic research: policies
Sources
- National Institutes of Health. NOT-OD-23-149: The use of generative artificial intelligence technologies is prohibited for the NIH peer review process (23 June 2023). https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-149.html
- National Science Foundation. Notice to research community: Use of generative artificial intelligence technology in the NSF merit review process (14 December 2023). https://www.nsf.gov/policies/ai/merit-review
- National Institutes of Health. NOT-OD-25-132: Supporting fairness and originality in NIH research applications (17 July 2025). https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-132.html
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations: AI use by authors. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/ai-use-by-authors.html
Last updated 2026-11-13