Paperguide Reviews

Was loving the document writer feature on the product. All of a sudden recently it generates an outline for the document but when you prompt it to write the document itself all you get is a blank page. Left a message on their chat bot with no response. Emailed support again with no response. Output when it was generating was fantastic but it stopped and there seems to be no support.

PaperGuide has sped up my research and become an essential part of my academic routine. It’s clear that the platform has a lot of potential to make literature reviews and data extraction much more efficient, and with a few thoughtful improvements, I can see it becoming an even more valuable tool for researchers everywhere.

From the start, I’ve noticed a real boost in my workflow thanks to PaperGuide. Being able to sift through large numbers of academic papers and pull out the information I need in a systematic way has changed how I approach my research. Still, after spending quite a bit of time using the platform, I’ve come across a few areas where some tweaks could make a big difference for researchers.

One of the main issues I’ve run into involves the systematic review feature. While it’s impressive that the platform can analyze thousands of articles, it’s not always clear how many of those are actually relevant to my research question. For example, if the system says it’s looked at 10,000 articles, I have no way of knowing how many really fit my criteria, which makes it hard to tell if I should adjust my search to improve results. Also, getting results in batches of ten isn’t ideal when I’m trying to get a full picture of the current state of research. I get that there are technical reasons for this, but even just having access to the titles and DOIs of all relevant articles would make it that much easier to filter and organize the results.

The reference management side of things could also benetit from some aditional work. When I’m dealing with big collections of documents, the “select all” option only grabs the first 100 items, and don't allow a batch selection in the middle of the list, so I have to go through and select the next 100 manually, one by one, which is pretty tedious. This gets even trickier in the literature review when I need to remove files to stay under the 100-article limit, since the system sometimes doesn’t register deletions properly and I end up having to refresh the page, losing any changes I’ve made.

Data extraction is another area where I’ve noticed some hiccups. While the feature is powerful, the results aren’t always consistent, which can make it hard to rely on the data. For instance, when I ask for DOIs, the responses come back in all sorts of formats—sometimes it’s “The DOI for the article is X,” other times it’s “The DOI provided in the context is Y,” and occasionally it’s just the DOI by itself. This means I’m constantly tweaking my prompts to get the output I need. Even more frustrating is when the system returns invalid or incomplete DOIs, like “https://doi.org/10,” which really undermines the trustworthiness of the extracted data in specific cases.

Performance can also be an issue, especially when I’m running larger analyses. Processing 100 articles across multiple columns can really slow things down, and I’ve noticed that the speed can vary a lot from day to day. Sometimes, columns just stop loading data altogether, leaving blank entries that I have to fix by removing and re-adding the columns.

I’ve also found that the platform struggles to cross-reference information between columns. For example, if I ask for a categorization based on some data in the article, the system often says the information isn’t available, even when it clearly is. Similarly, requests for open access status often come up empty, which limits how I can use that information in my analysis.

On the user interface side, it would be great to have more flexibility, especially when it comes to managing columns. Being able to reorder columns and save custom configurations for different projects would make things a lot smoother.

Despite these issues, I want to stress that PaperGuide is a big step forward for research tools. Its main features have really changed the way I handle literature reviews and data extraction. If the team can address some of these usability and reliability concerns, I think PaperGuide could become an indispensable resource for researchers everywhere.

One last suggestion: I think developing a Brazilian Portuguese version would be great.

Thanks again for building such an innovative platform. I’m excited to see how it continues to grow and adapt to the needs of the research community.

PaperGuide.ai has completely transformed how I approach writing and research. Whether I’m crafting articles, developing content for my brand, or working on educational materials, this tool saves me hours. The AI feels like a super-smart assistant that actually understands what I’m trying to create.

What I love most is how easy it is to organize thoughts, generate outlines, and even get high-quality drafts based on my ideas. It doesn’t just spit out generic content—it tailors suggestions to match my tone and purpose. The interface is clean, simple, and a joy to use.

I’ve tried other tools, but PaperGuide stands out with its thoughtful features and real results. It’s now part of my daily workflow, and I can’t imagine going back to manual drafting or juggling ten tabs for research.

If you’re a writer, content creator, educator, or just someone who wants to write better and faster—you need this tool. Seriously. Total game-changer!

I would say it doesnt deliver what it promises, not even close.
The concept is great. If it functions as it advertises, it will be the best idea every for those writing papers. I tried researching on one topic and i was surprised to see that the research article is created by referring only 10 papers on a topic for which google scholar shows thousands of papers to refer. To my surprise, the article was even smaller than what chatgpt gave with it 4-o mini.
Good concept, but very early for me to invest in a tool which way behind its version number 1.0 (in a layman parlance)

I’m really enjoying Paperguide’s research capabilities because it cites real sources! I’ve used other research Ai tools and they’re a lot of misses due to the Ai hallucinations! I haven’t experienced that with Paperguide. I do wish you could upload larger pdf files and can’t wait until the plagiarism section is updated to work again — hopefully soon! So far so good. I hope Paperguide is here to stay and doesn’t get rid of appsumers if they decide to sell the company or something. The creator of Paperguide has an impressive background and I believe it’s in good hands!