Thank you for the appreciation and great feedback!
| If you expand beyond arxiv, keep in mind since coverage matters for lit reviews,
I do have PaperMatchBio [^1] for bioRxiv and PaperMatchMed [^2] for medRxiv, however I do agree having multiple sites for domains isn't ideal. And I am yet to create a synchronization pipeline for these two so the results may be a little stale.
| unfortunately the big publishers (Elsevier and Springer) are forcing other indices like OpenAlex, etc. to remove abstracts so they're harder to get.
This sounds like a real issue in expanding the coverage.
| Have you checked out other tools like undermind.ai, scite.ai, and elicit.org?
I did, but maybe not thoroughly enough. I will check these and add complementing features.
| You might consider what else a dedicated product workflow for lit reviews includes besides search
Do you mean a reference management system like Mendeley/Zotero?
Unusual use case but I write literature reviews for French R&D tax cut system, and we specifically need to: focus on most recent papers, stay on topic for a very specific problematic a company has, potentially include grey literature (tech blog articles from renowned corp), be as exhaustive as possible when it comes to freely accessible papers (we are more ok with missing paid papers unless they are really popular).
A "dedicated product workflow" could be about taking business use cases like that into account.
This is a real business problem, the Google Scholar lock up is annoying and I would pay for something better than what exists.
Hey, I'm not OP, but I'm working on what seems to be the exact problem you mentioned. We (https://fixpoint.co/) search and monitor web data about companies. We are indexing patents and academic papers right now, plus we can scrape and monitor just about any website (some social media sites not supported).
We have users with very similar use cases to yours. Want to email me? dylan@fixpoint.co. I'm one of the founders :)
This can be seen as technology watch, as opposed to a thesis literature review for instance.
Google Scholar gives the best results but sadly doesn't really want you to build products on top of it : no api, no scraping.
Breaking this monopoly would be a huge step forward, especially when coupled with semantic search.
"|" it's a terrible character for signaling quotes, as it looks a bit too much like "I" or "l" and sometimes even "1" or "i" depending on the font used. I believe the greater-than symbol (>) is better suited for this task.
| If you expand beyond arxiv, keep in mind since coverage matters for lit reviews,
I do have PaperMatchBio [^1] for bioRxiv and PaperMatchMed [^2] for medRxiv, however I do agree having multiple sites for domains isn't ideal. And I am yet to create a synchronization pipeline for these two so the results may be a little stale.
| unfortunately the big publishers (Elsevier and Springer) are forcing other indices like OpenAlex, etc. to remove abstracts so they're harder to get.
This sounds like a real issue in expanding the coverage.
| Have you checked out other tools like undermind.ai, scite.ai, and elicit.org?
I did, but maybe not thoroughly enough. I will check these and add complementing features.
| You might consider what else a dedicated product workflow for lit reviews includes besides search
Do you mean a reference management system like Mendeley/Zotero?
[1]: https://papermatchbio.mitanshu.tech/ [2]: https://papermatchmed.mitanshu.tech/