For postdocs
Built for postdocs
You're in the pub-or-perish window. Your PI is a reference, not a co-author on your next grant. Move faster without cutting corners.
The postdoc publication trap
You have a 2–3 year window to establish an independent publication record before the tenure-track market. Every paper matters disproportionately. Every rejection costs weeks. Every 'reviewer 2 says you missed Smith et al. 2019' costs a revision cycle.
This is the workflow where under 15 minutes of AI pre-review can save you one.
What changes for postdocs specifically
Postdocs use the same 8-agent review as everyone else, but four of the agents matter disproportionately:
- Literature Coverage — reads your reference list and flags the sub-areas you under-cover and the references a reviewer would expect, with a live OpenAlex overview of your field as context. Reviewer 2's favorite complaint, raised before submission instead of after.
- Originality + Prior Publication — Originality checks your novelty claims against our 4.5M-paper local library; Prior Publication fans out in parallel across 7 public databases (CrossRef, PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Europe PMC and Unpaywall) and the same library. Together they catch self-overlap with your own preprints before an editor does.
- Methodology — audits against CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA depending on your study design. Closed journals increasingly require reporting checklist adherence; we flag gaps before you submit.
Grant and fellowship writing
The Research Gap Finder (120K+ open gaps mined from 100K+ papers in a 4.5M-paper local library) doubles as a novelty-claim checker for grant preliminary statements. Paste your specific aim and the search, which costs no credits, gives back the surrounding literature — one list of every paper it found, which you can sort by most cited or newest, filter, and download as RIS or BibTeX. Unlocking the topic then compares the papers on it field by field and writes the open gaps out of that comparison, so you can see whether the gap you're claiming is actually open.
That check fits the fellowship applications where a novelty claim carries the most weight — K99/R00, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, EMBO and NSF PRFB among them. The output is not a substitute for reading the literature — it's a way to be sure you haven't missed it.
Co-author and PI workflows
Two common patterns:
- Solo pre-submission: run your draft through AI Review before sending it to your PI. Cuts the PI feedback cycle from 'here are 27 things' to 'here are the 3 substantive things I actually need to weigh in on'.
- Multi-author: every co-author can run their section against the agents independently, then the corresponding author assembles. Keeps revisions surgical rather than collective.
- Publication route (planned, not open): an open-access route where accepted papers are planned to carry CC BY 4.0 and their review record. It is not accepting submissions, and any fee will be stated when it opens.