Summarize Paper logo SummarizePaper.com
Premium+

Literature review

Ask a research question. We look for the papers that answer it, find the founding and the recent ones, group them by approach and write a comparative synthesis that cites them.

How to ask your question and check the synthesis? Illustrated guide

A real example: what you get

Example in Astrophysics Computer science and AI Biology and medicine

30 papers in 6 themes · “Origins of Gas in Debris Discs”.

  • A synthesis, each sentence with its papers
  • 6 themes with their findings
  • 2 points of consensus
  • 2 disagreements, each side with its papers
  • 4 open questions
  • Each statement with the quoted sentence of its paper
The synthesis

The papers support secondary gas production in several debris discs, but do not establish a single origin for all systems, especially those with unusually large CO reservoirs.

A point of consensus, with its source

CO observations alone are insufficient to settle the origin of CO-rich debris-disc gas; carbon measurements and constraints on H2 provide more discriminating tests.

Its source Our work demonstrates that the combination of C and CO data is a powerful tool to advance our understanding of debris disk gas. — Primordial or Secondary? Testing Models of Debris Disk Gas with ALMA*

The first results

  1. Dust Migration and Morphology in Optically Thin Circumstellar Gas Disks Taku Takeuchi, Pawel Artymowicz · 2001 It models gas retention and dust migration in transitional disks, informing how gas can persist into debris-like stages.
  2. MOLECULAR GAS IN YOUNG DEBRIS DISKS A. Moór, P. Ábrahám, Attila Juhász, Csaba Kiss et al. · 2011 Discovers CO around HD 21997 and motivates investigation of gas evolution and its relationship to primordial discs.

28 more results hidden

See a complete example, explained step by step →

Create a free account, then Premium+ runs it on your own work. Continue with Google Create a free account Log in

How it works

  1. We turn your question into its key concepts, their synonyms, and several literature searches.
  2. We run them on OpenAlex (journals, preprints and conference papers, open access or not) and on arXiv, by relevance and for the last three years, and look for reviews and the most cited works.
  3. We follow the citations both ways: the works many of the closest papers cite are the founding papers a keyword search misses, and the recent papers that cite those are the ones written with newer words. Retracted papers are left out.
  4. We rank the candidates by closeness to your question, an AI screens their abstracts and says why each one is kept, and we keep 15 to 30 papers, founding and recent, preprints and unreviewed deposits marked as such.
  5. We read the conclusions of the papers whose full text is open, then write a synthesis by approach, a comparison table, where the papers agree and disagree, what they leave open, and the numbered references. Each statement shows the sentences of the papers that support it, checked word for word.
  6. Take papers out or put others in, search again with your own queries or later to see what is new, and export the review to BibTeX, RIS, Markdown, LaTeX or Zotero.