3 Unbelievable AI Technologies to Automate Your Literature Review

[@OcTHH]

Hello, Andy! I work in the healthcare field in a developing country, and we've got some pretty tough challenges to overcome. A lot of the solutions have already been figured out in other countries, but I sometimes struggle with understanding the papers and articles in English, which isn't my first language. It makes it hard for me to share insights and bring in global knowledge to help tackle our problems. But thanks to your content, things have started to look up! I'm feeling more confident and productive at work, and I'm able to support my organization and colleagues more effectively. So, a big thank you to you, Andy! I really appreciate your work.

[@jas5962]

I was struggling to do the thought process for literature review. Jenni ai is exactly what I needed. I don't find any words how to thank you. Seriously.

[@ad-wo2vg]

"It takes away all of the thought process, which I absolutely love" 😃

[@alexferdinansyah757]

Thank you Andy. Your videos have helped me be informed about the tools that are useful for researches and the path to PhD in general.

[@SamuelWebster]

I don't know how Science goes, but dissertations in the Humanities require criticism of the literature as a foundation for your work and your approach. I feel like while AI might give some ideas of what is out there, it would limit it to the standard literature review that everyone else writes, and would have to be rewritten anyway. Given the risk of plagiarism, I think it's best to approach AI tools as helpful hints to trigger your own brain.

[@SamuelWebster]

We do need to combat gatekeeping, but I do worry that people who use AI to write their dissertation haven't really earned the degree they will be awarded. There are places where AI might be forgivable, but in the writing of a dissertation, there is a real risk of not being awarded your PhD if they find out, and personally, I would feel like I cheated the system if I got a PhD with AI generated text. It's not like we're talking about basic degrees required to get a job.

[@SamuelWebster]

I think a lot of this could be addressed by how you talk about these tools. For example, rather than as an approach to automating your literature review, you could take your own ideas and use the 'Citation' tool to find out if anyone has discussed that before, and solidify our research by going and reading that text as support for your own ideas.

[@Victorbrisk]

Literature review is quite different from discussing your results and methodology. I think AI can and will assist us with the literature review part (no problems for me there, you are just writing information that has been published before). The part where you have to write your own methodology and discuss the results you found giving them context is something that still requires a human brain.

[@SamuelWebster]

@@Victorbrisk while I can see your point, leaving articles aside, the reason a dissertation has a lit review is to prove that you have read and engaged with the field thoroughly before contributing to it. If you don't write the lit review, you probably haven't done that (and I'd argue that while an AI lit review might do a good job of summarising, it will do a poor job of connecting the readings in an engaging and nuanced way). Anyway, regardless of whether a lit review is a redundant step in writing a doctoral thesis, using AI to write one in 2023 will certainly put your PhD at risk. (I would also argue that your findings are going to be pretty lacklustre and unoriginal if you haven't actually done the reading a lit review makes you do, but again I'm speaking from humanities, not science, where insight is more than data.)

[@Victorbrisk]

@@SamuelWebster I do agree with you. In order to write a metodology that will lead to an innovation on the subject, you have to review the literature at some point to see what's going on the field. But like I said before, after reading 100+ articles and some books, I don't see the issue in using the AI to write the review, granted that the user will fact check every sentence.

[@theinspiringstempodcast]

Fantastic Andy. Those of us within academic publishing and scientific writing are looking for AI-tools that deliver citations currently missing from ChatGPT. Amazing and cheers again!

[@sixteenandbeyond3364]

Thanks so much. Sat here trying to start my PHD and really didn’t know where to start

[@test-jw5xn]

I've spent 30 years in my field. Recently, my students and I have tested many AI tools suggested by Andy and others. In our seminars, we see if they offer fresh insights into complex papers. Unfortunately, they usually give us boring or repetitive ideas, and highlight trivial gaps in the literature that advanced students wouldn't find appealing. These tools also tend to misinterpret our work and overlook known issues. We recognize AI's potential, but it still has quite a way to go.

[@adamturner1239]

I would say that this is the consensus among researchers who do not have a vested interest in building their social media sites.

[@TheHeadincharge]

I’ve found it super useful to begin research into a new topic where standard google searches either lead nowhere or link me to academic articles that are overly complex for my needs. For example, I used it last week to help me understand shooting templates in MRI research better and then was able to use those explanations to properly search for the info I needed. I think as long as you treat it as an advanced Google search, it’s really useful. Using it to actually create content, especially longer form content, is a fool’s errand and will never be something these AI’s are good at since they can only use information that has already been produced. This isn’t new though, people have been hyping up AI’s capabilities for decades now and it will only continue as people continue to delude themselves into thinking that these AI bots can in any way emulate the human brain by describing recursive processes as “neural networks”.

[@adamturner1239]

@@TheHeadincharge This is a good point. It can be useful for identifying keywords in a new domain for further follow up search and my students have used it this way.

[@abubakarjabo6808]

Honesty speaking, AI helps a lot in conducting Research,Essay and writing in general, it wouldn't be 100 perfect, however it provides some help as even with Human beings nothing is 100 percent perfect.

[@stampederealty]

It's an ok tool to use to maybe get the ball rolling and light research, but like 2 lawyers found out, don't let AI be the researcher.

[@HappiestGnome]

Another wasted $20 on an AI tool. I used Jenni to create a lit review based on a library of 100+ PDFs and it hallucinated two case studies in the first 1,000 words. Remarkably, it doesn't keep a trace from its generated content to the source from the uploaded library. When you return to generated content to add a citation, Jenni suggests multiple documents rather than confidently listing the actual source(s). Sometimes the source is among the suggested papers, sometimes in a different paper, sometimes nowhere -- hallucinated! Jenni is worse than useless. It's a loaded trap.

[@larawrightt]

I’m in the same boat. I wish I hadn’t wasted my money based on Andy’s recommendation.

[@tanyavanniekerk7863]

I also played with it for about 30min and realized it may only be good for suggesting some headings for my lit review. The rest was so darn basic it could not even point me in a direction. Perhaps it will get better in future - but not great yet

[@burtleboeuf1429]

"it takes away all of the thought process...which I absolutely love". Said the academic to his students.

[@ks.14.]

Thank you for another great video! I was wondering if you could cover the ethics of using AI in research in one of your future videos? With the rise of AI, there are important ethical considerations that need to be addressed, such as transparency, accountability, intellectual property, and the line between original text and plagiarism e.g. when it comes to paper writing: Is it still your own text? When does it enter a grey area, and when does it cross the line into plagiarism? I think it's a super interesting and important issue that a lot of people would be into. Thanks again for making awesome videos, and I can't wait to see what's next! :)

[@TheHeadincharge]

I think it’s pretty agreed upon that actually using AI generated content in an academic paper is very clearly unethical. It’s at best a secondary source and very clearly plagiarism in many contexts. I always recommend for people to treat it like Wikipedia when it comes to academic writing. The only thing I would say is find to use, and people seem to agree, is for summarizing your own words, creating abstracts, or generating keywords. I think these apps are very useful at saving you time when trying to understand new information of for summarizing, but they are little more than consolidated search engines at the end of the day.

[@Karim-kk1ol]

I definitely agree with you

[@Magsmog]

I usually start with my own words and because I can be sometimes less than articulate I use AI to improve or reword my own words, I then improve but not copy but I am concerned that this is still unethical?

[@ImThatAuntie]

​@@Magsmog What's unethical about enhancing your own wording? You're not stealing anything from yourself lol. Our language skills are constantly evolving and what you're referring to is common practice in society. Before AI we used a dictionary and thesaurus to help improve our wording. This is no different. You'll only have ethical issues if you steal someone else's work and try to pass it off as your own.

[@PicanteLive]

Echoing other sentiments that this seems to be much more applicable to fields with quantitative research. Given the qualitative analysis of materials required for humanities fields, I don't think that the state of academic AI tools lends itself to creating a literature using this approach. Given AI's advancement, I wouldn't be surprised if it churned out relatively passable analysis in the coming years though. It is still useful for a more bottom up approach though, finding the actual sources, i.e., wading through the excessive number of articles that may or may not be related to your research topic and giving you the most relevant ones as well as summing up their main arguments. This will save humanities researchers a bunch of overhead time before getting into the nitty gritty. The main worry I personally have is that I've noticed AI tends to spit out similar articles for related fields, which could then lead to over-citation or focus on certain articles as determined by the algorithm, which will then introduce a positive feedback loop (more citations means further recommendations of the same material).

[@preciousamaechi689]

I would feel so guilty if I dare use an AI to write my literature review. I think going through the struggle and thinking process truly is rewarding. AI is truly useful for ideas and searching through papers quickly but one has got to really do the thinking and cohesion of ideas.

[@honourablesadia737]

I like the way you think.

[@lechosenone7016]

there are ways of using AI while still doing the majority of the work

[@alexanderkurbanov6477]

Thanks!

[@DrAndyStapleton]

Thank you so much for the super thanks!

[@dr.salmaakterfhea1940]

Thanks a lot Mr Andy. It's wonderful information to update a researcher.

[@philben3897]

Fantastic video and a superb presentation. Keep it up dear Andy

[@bonniehoke-scedrov4906]

This is my first time enjoying your KZbin channel. Great content! Looking forward to hearing more from you! Your video was so informative. Thank you so much!

[@elishasay1542]

Thank you so much Andy. That helps alot.

[@nnahas7286]

Thank you Andy. It's very helpful

[@sivabalankaniapan8786]

Thank you so much, I am so certain that this technology would make researcher life much easier and we can save a lot of time and learn alot in a short time.

[@stephenwilliams9570]

As a reviewer for journals I have decided to become even more selective when accepting or rejecting literature reviews. I am not sure if you understand but you will be inundated with plethera of review articles to referee for any journals you agree to be a reviewer. This will naturally bring about others who will, at first glance, now reject reviews with a bias that it was generated by an AI. Experienced reviewers will notice the lack of effort put into a review.

[@TheMorgalion]

Is there an AI tool for writing Conceptual and Theoretical Framework? Thanks

[@MultiENOW]

hi Anddy i wish you help me on how to get my academic thesis

[@HassanAbbas-ow2tr]

Hi Andy, Your videos are very inspiring and make our life very easy. Do you have any Video on Scoping Reviewing technique? I will looking forward to hear from you. Thanks

[@oscarpradilla]

You are the Best !!! Brutal IA

[@salwabeauty9290]

Thank you Andy!!!!!!!🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@MichaelBrueckner]

Wisio accesses only Pubmed for its literature search. Not really useful for engineering at this moment.

[@BekiSolution]

Thank you so much my dear brother...I love you. God bless you.

[@adn17]

Hi Andy, thank you for your content. Can you make videos focused in the field of education and humanities & social sciences?

[@stefandosch8286]

I am searching for a tool, which can make a literature review from multiple papers which I give to it on PDF Form. Any recommendations?

[@stelabileva4915]

Your channel has been so helpful, thank you!

[@ametorwobright1316]

very interesting, how do we benefit from all these AI tools if journals will not accept AI

[@suhabekki5417]

It is wonderful to begin with the jenni ai, but we must synthesise and be critical in our discussion of a lietratire review.

[@TheHeadincharge]

I think it’s really useful as a starting point before you do your own research, but to actually use that generated lit review AS your lit review is certainly unethical. At the end of the day, these apps should be treated just like we treat Wikipedia. They’re a great starting off point, but should be treated as preliminary research on secondary sources.

[@user-ip9bw4lo9y]

​@@TheHeadincharge 💯

[@reyamahmed68]

thanks Andrew💓

[@azharzakaria1327]

Fast n Furious, 4 lit review. Thx Andy.

[@suhabekki5417]

hello Andy, thank you and i have been a great fan of you...

[@Gloriyaspacs]

thank you Andy its really worthy🥰

[@Unknown-tw2qc]

can we detect whether the review article are fully generated by those AI apps?

[@pierreburciaga6637]

😁 wonderfull, thank you it´s great video!

[@littlebrit]

They just generate some random text. I tried to switch narrative, but seems they are stuck on that text they were trained. Not useful.

[@md.jubierahammed8778]

Informative video

[@fei16888]

How to upload the PDF I have for the topics I’ve collected on open read ? You didn’t say, but kept saying to scan your papers.

[@belvinos]

Thank you👏👏

[@ceritanontonyoutube6784]

Thank you for these tips. I am writing a literature review, I tried using Jenni and Chat GPT but somehow, they both didn't give me a coherent writing style. Every time I read each paragraph it give me a feeling it is written by a different person. Are there any tips on how to do this? Or should I use other AI tools? Thank you

[@SistahHood]

While AI is amazing, I like the idea of learning. Using AI Maybe helpful but it doesn’t replace being able to critically think as an individual especially when it comes to counseling individuals.

[@cesarvallejo7993]

Hi Andy, what is your opinion about the reliability of the result of those AI algorithms for academic purposes? I have not had such good results with some tools (scite_ and Scholarcy), so I decided to make my LR "by hand". Thank you, excellent video!

[@karinasmith5183]

Amazing thank you so much

[@ignacioaliendepovedano581]

Great tools. Which app would you recommend to make a bibliometric study about a specific topic?

[@abelmaestrogarcia6650]

hazme una extensión o funcion que pulse una tecla en javascript y que la ejecute en Obsidian por ejemplo, Obsidian con la extensión Jupyter y la extensión de ejecución automática, además con Text Generator le lanzas una plantilla para que... , o que introduzca un texto ya que estamos, ¿y si le digo donde pincha el ratón? Ya puestos que me grave mis movimientos y me cree una extensión de ello... Ahora la IA tiene su propio ordenador.

[@corsai7506]

Sick, choice is mine of which one to use

[@rajsakadasariya2712]

Hey! Your videos are very informative and give a very good insight into ai. Could you tell me any tool or an easy way to create a PRISMA flow diagram?

[@mulwandarichard2047]

Doc good day to you! this is wonderful info. How do I access Jenni? Am a Doctor of Laws Student (LLD)

[@AzShaneT]

Thank you!

[@chirantandebnath3781]

Thanks for such a nice video, I have a specific query on my thesis writing, can I please reach you and ask it please.

[@hoppingwren]

Has anyone used wisio in the systematic lit review setting? I haven't... I'd feel nervous to trust AI with a systematic review process as the strength of AI seems to be as a writing/language model Seems like there would also be in issue with closed access journals...

[@arnoldbetungurabsciv1868]

So helpful Wow!

[@absolutwillie]

Thanks Andy! Useful thinking tools, as always. Q: I was wondering if you have any advice/tool suggestions for modifying an existing literature review? I have to pivot (Social Sciences PhD, what can I say 🤷‍♂️) and flip focus (RQ A; sub B -> RQ B; sub A) and the timing is doing my head in a bit.

[@TheHeadincharge]

Break it down pretty granularly in an outlining app into a series of nested subheadings. Each paragraph or so should therefore get its own subheading in the outline based on what it covers, keep them as brief as possible. Once you have that outline complete, I would then modify that outline by deleting, moving, and adding the information as needed. Keep track of which ones need to be deleted, what is being kept, and what is being added in some way, maybe just highlighting. This will help you retain as much info as possible and restructure it fairly easily while also allowing for it to flow well. Trying to modify the text without a detailed outline can be quite challenging and lead to a very disjointed paper I’ve found.

[@absolutwillie]

@@TheHeadincharge This is great advice, thank you!

[@nicholasochieng8144]

Another masterpiece Andy, I'm addicted to your content. One question though, does AI detectors still recognize work co-authored using these tools?

[@Viktor_Rafael]

in my experience, yes. It is always best to check by uploading into an AI detector

[@sciencelearning2326]

Hello Brother Andy, I have tried several times to sign up for your newsletter but without result. I hope you can help me

[@DrAndyStapleton]

send an email to andy(@)andrewstapleton.com.au and I'll sign you up manually.

[@johnwinslow8841]

These models all to often give false info. Ask the same true or false question across several models to see it for yourself. Use a model that will interact with uploaded material for accurate responses.

[@AndrewKunik]

what models can I use for that? I have a bunch of PDFs downloaded that I want to upload for a review

[@johnwinslow8841]

@@AndrewKunik Claud 2 unfortunately is now not working as well as it used to ( with a paid sub) concerning interacting with uploaded documents. It allows up to 5 separate documents to be uploaded and queried at the same time.. But the 10 mb upload claim is false. The total max is around 1.2 mb with paid or unpaid. Using Chatgpt with the Ask Your PDF plugin works pretty good, however, not so good if querying more than one ID number a the same time. I heard that chatgpt is now allowing direct upload of documents. Not sure if that is only with beta users. I am going to check it out. For chatbots, I have found that using the phrase "the text in the pdf file" to work well when asking it to query a document outside of asking for a summary. So you could say, "provide a direct quote on such and such a topic in the text in the pdf file." That is not necessary for chatgpt or Claud.

[@rojdaelavi9515]

Hi thank you for video l want to asking you about pdf file courses to sell do you know the platform ore website the have course and allowed to sell

[@ElijahHunter77]

Thank you for a great presentation! QQQ: can you do a similar review of AI apps which could help dress for the information for an "old school" literature review? I mean, fighting elements for the table which contains descriptives the article, research questions or hypotheses, results, discussion/contribution, and future Direction?

[@muhirwabadarito9102]

YOU ARE THE BEST

[@snkhan1719]

Kindly suggest AI that can help giving suggestions in data ana4

[@KbrKr_]

I’m wondering 2 things here: 1- where is the integrity in letting AI write your literature review, and 2- will it pass the zerogpt test ?

[@rudolfbumm8126]

You're awesome.

[@bwogi2]

can they help write discussion cos its what i want to do

[@TheHeadincharge]

That is literally the last place you should be using this… the entire point of the discussion section is for YOU to discuss your own thoughts and interpretations of the results… so no, please do not use this for your discussion section beyond basic brainstorming or editing/summarizing tasks.

[@gunngunn6763]

One may use mirror think

[@princekumarsonu3529]

Jenny AI for review writing is plagiarism free?

[@NatureLead]

safe bet, you better rewrite it yourself...

[@TheHeadincharge]

Copying anything a chat bot generates and submitting it as your own work is plagiarism, so I don’t really get the question… if you’re copying from a chat bot, you’re plagiarizing.

[@ukwale7510]

Great 😃👍👍

[@xiaohuiyu1928]

Are they all free or need to pay?

[@gk1of]

Hi, kindly tell me if chatgpt can be detected by Turntin? If yes will it be plagiarised?

[@npvuvuzela]

Yes, Turnitin is now able to detect ChatGPT and other AI writing services.

[@gk1of]

@@npvuvuzela thank you for your reply. Should I be worried if I have used Chatgpt in some writing in my thesis?

[@SamuelWebster]

If ChatGPT has done the writing for you, then it is plagiarism, at least without an advancement of guidelines in the use of GPT in academia.

[@gk1of]

@@SamuelWebster Thank you for the clarification.

[@SamuelWebster]

@@gk1of If you're worried about your writing, you can consider services like Studiosity of course, but an effective way to use AI is to avoid asking it to write for you. Consider prompts like 'How could I improve my expression in this paragraph?" and takes its suggestions as starting points for your editing. The issues for plagiarism in academia come from the distinction between what is your work and what is the work of someone else (whether that be AI or another academic), so at the most AI should be a means to highlight issues, just like you would use spellcheck. The minute it crosses the line from suggestion into composition is where academic feathers will get ruffled. Since there are no clear guidelines on what is legitimate AI use, it's best to err on the side of caution.

[@samiraatia6217]

اووووه شكرا جزيلاً لكَ اندي.

[@tahaal-shadli5571]

oh my god you just saved my life

[@josrud8939]

Thanks sir

[@edisoon4019]

i waiting for the nexts

[@dirkster42]

"Without you even having to think about it." This is exactly how I fear AI will make us all stupider.

[@npvuvuzela]

The internet/smart devices have already been doing this for nearly 20 years... Such is the inevitable fate of widescale societal integration of AI and other "smart" technologies.

[@nl8784]

Don’t worry, humans are stupid enough already that the majority are entirely brainwashed by whatever the media tells them to believe anyway. Is not gonna make it any worst.

[@TheHeadincharge]

Thankfully it is pretty easy to tell who is using AI to do the work for them and who is using it to simply amplify their own knowledge.

[@OnSenseAndReference]

This is just shocking. Will we handle this avalanche until it buries us?

[@OiVinn-eq1ml]

I finally got a chance to use Jenny & didn't like it. I have to keep Accepting submissions. It wasn't automated like ChapGPT. While I understand the use & purpose Jenny was doing, it was too tedious for me. It's also too slow in general. I would rather check citations separately.

[@davidpark5168]

Hello, I'm the CEO of Jenni AI. We purposefully only give suggestions in chunks because we believe that human + AI writing is the safest and most responsible way to interface with AI. ChatGPT giving an entire automated essay is both lower quality and more likely to have inaccuracies and 'hallucinations'. Hopefully that makes sense, totally understand if you prefer the generation mechanic of ChatGPT, but Jenni AI will always be an AI assistant first and foremost to augment the human not replace. :) We believe the future is written with AI, not by AI!

[@OiVinn-eq1ml]

@@davidpark5168 But isn’t accepting sentences in chunks stilled considered written by AI? Only difference is the output is chucks rather having it all written. It’s all the same? As for hallucinations & low quality, that’s just the flaw of ChatGPT itself. Not the actual functions & nature of AI I believe. It’s similar to building a car. Having a factory & machine assembling it vs a person putting all the pieces one by one. In the end, both will have a car. Except one is going to be done faster. Quality isn’t by the functions itself but rather the mods, mechanics, programming of the machine & robots vs a human brain.

[@ndinashay4662]

@@davidpark5168 There is no difference between ChatGPT and Jenni AI. They both help people cheat on their papers. Literally, what is different about Jenni AI? Nothing!

[@davidpark5168]

@@OiVinn-eq1ml If you blindly accept chunks without doing anything then you will end up with a similar output, but that's not the intended use case of Jenni! By giving AI assistance as you write and being an advanced autocomplete, it allows for more human in the loop and space where you as the writer can verify the information and write yourself to help guide the AI to go exactly where you want it to go! Again, some people prefer to let the AI do all of the work, but we believe AI + Human is the superior way to write!

[@OiVinn-eq1ml]

@@davidpark5168 Yes I get it. It was just to tedious for me imo. Great software & function though

[@drgoodluckn]

Good tools

[@rachhsiu]

anyone tried Oreate AI?

[@olivier3516]

Anyone trusting Jenni Ai with these random references ?

[@cookergronkberg]

Yikes, this is an anathema to quality scholarship.

[@raedalhussain1386]

I can't find Wisio!

[@User-Tal1951]

Trying wisio, never found references. Always say, "couldn't find references"

[@username42]

damn how lucky nowadays phd students, we were having countless sleepless nights at library by reading the books. now everything is on just couple of clicks away. lucky kids , should be more appreciate what they have now

[@TheHeadincharge]

Yeah, it definitely hasn’t changed much… we aren’t using AI to write our stuff and are still spending hours in the library lol. If you actually wrote your entire dissertation literature review using these apps, you’re going to be screwed in your defense. Only real difference is that we do it all on computers of course which certainly speeds up the rate at which we can find articles themselves.

[@landonmacaulay3224]

thank lil bra

[@SimonMilesresearch]

Why bother stopping there? Hand over your entire job and life to AI. Stay in bed. It's smarter than you, so give up.

[@DSL_2001]

It's "Eye triple ee" not "Eye ee ee ee"! 😁

[@ĐăngHải-h1y]

like

[@danielconiff8178]

This is unethical and defeats the purpose of education. I can see no applications of AI that would be helpful in academia.