AI research assistant
Ask a research question or upload your sources and get work you can trust to trace back: a sourced report that cites where each claim comes from, a fact-check that says what holds up and what does not, a literature synthesis across papers, a plan for your data analysis. Zeplik works from the sources you provide and the ones it can find, and it is honest about the line: it synthesizes and cites for your own verification, it does not hand you peer-reviewed fact or medical advice.
Who it is for
- Researchers and analysts who need sourced, checkable answers
- Graduate students synthesizing literature and drafting write-ups
- Scientists setting up computational, genomic, or chemical analysis
- Anyone who needs to separate a real claim from a confident guess
How it works
Ask the question or upload the sources
Pose the research question, or upload the papers, reports, and notes you want it grounded in. Nothing is assumed. When you provide sources it answers from them, and it can search more widely when you ask, always tracing claims back.
Ask for the research work you need
Say it plainly, for example "write a sourced report on this" or "fact-check these claims" or "set up the analysis for this dataset." Zeplik routes to the right research skill without you naming it, and you can steer scope, depth, and rigor.
Verify every source and use it
You get a result with claims tied to sources and the reasoning shown. Open the citations, confirm they say what the report says, and then use it, iterate, or export it. Any regulated or health decision still needs a qualified professional.
What you can ask
Real asks in plain language, and the concrete deliverable you get back. Open the assistant to try your own; nothing runs until you send it.
Write a sourced research report on the question I will give you.
A structured report that answers the question with each key claim tied to a source, the state of the evidence, where sources disagree, and the open questions, so you can check the trail rather than trust a summary.
Fact-check the claims in this text and cite what holds up.
A claim-by-claim verdict on the text you paste: what is supported, what is wrong, and what is unverifiable, each with a source or an honest note that no source was found, instead of a blanket judgment.
Synthesize these papers into a literature review.
A synthesis across the papers you upload: the themes and consensus, the disagreements and gaps, and how the work fits together, cited back to the specific sources, not a vague blend.
Help me set up the analysis for my dataset.
An analysis plan and the computational approach for the data you describe, drawing on the right scientific-computing or domain toolkit, with the methods and assumptions stated so the work is reproducible.
Draft the methods and figure plan for my paper.
A methods section and a plan for publication-quality figures for the study you describe, structured to the conventions of your field and ready for you to refine and validate.
Summarize this long paper and pull out what actually matters.
A faithful summary of the source you provide: the question, the method, the findings, and the limitations, so you grasp it fast without losing the caveats that matter.
What it can do
The assistant routes to the right skill for you. Each one below is a focused, ready-to-run workflow; follow a link to see exactly what it does.
Research and sourcing
Answer the question with a trail you can follow back.
- Deep researchA long, multi-step, sourced report on an open question.
- ResearchInvestigate a question and synthesize an evidence-backed answer.
- Research workflowChain scope, research, sources, and synthesis into one project.
- Methodology and rigorHypotheses, study design, and scientific rigor.
- Fact-checkingDecompose claims and verify each against sources.
Synthesis and reading
Turn a pile of sources into something you can use.
- Knowledge synthesisMerge findings from many sources into a coherent whole.
- Summarize anythingFaithful summaries of papers, transcripts, and threads.
- Search your sourcesAnswer from documents you attach, with citations.
- Grounded Q and AAnswers grounded only in the sources you upload, cited.
Scientific writing and figures
Draft the paper and the visuals to your field's conventions.
- Academic publishingCitations, references, LaTeX, and venue formatting.
- Scientific figuresPublication-quality schematics and plots.
- Clinical writingClinical and medical document drafting for your review.
Computation and modeling
Set up the numerical and symbolic work.
- Scientific computingSymbolic math, graphs, simulation, and numerical work in Python.
- Quantum computingQiskit, Cirq, PennyLane, and open quantum systems.
Life sciences toolkits
Domain-specific pipelines for bio, chem, and medical data.
- Computational biologySingle-cell RNA-seq, deep models, and nf-core pipelines.
- GenomicsVariant calling, alignment, and population genetics.
- CheminformaticsRDKit and molecular modeling and property prediction.
- Medical imagingDICOM handling, digital pathology, and biosignals.
What a general chatbot gets wrong on research, and what is different here
Ask a raw chatbot for research and it will hand you a confident, fluent answer with citations that look real and sometimes are not. That is the core failure: it optimizes for sounding authoritative, not for being checkable. Zeplik verifies papers against OpenAlex before citing them, ties claims to sources you can open, answers from the material you provide, and says plainly when it cannot verify something.
The failure. A general model fabricates a citation, a plausible author, title, and year for a paper that does not exist, to support a claim.
How Zeplik grounds it. Zeplik verifies references with the scholarly_search tool against OpenAlex (240M+ papers) before citing, ties claims to sources you can actually open, prefers the material you upload, and when it cannot find support it says so instead of inventing a reference. You verify the trail before you cite it.
The failure. Asked to fact-check, a general model gives a blanket true or false without separating what is supported from what is merely plausible.
How Zeplik grounds it. The fact-check skill decomposes the text into individual claims and rules on each one, with a source or an explicit note that none was found, so you see exactly which parts hold up.
The failure. A general model blends many papers into a smooth summary that hides where they actually disagree.
How Zeplik grounds it. Synthesis keeps the disagreements and gaps visible and cites back to the specific source for each point, so you get the real state of the evidence, not an averaged-out consensus that no paper actually supports.
What it does not do
Knowing the boundary is part of using it responsibly. This is where a person, not the assistant, has to own the call.
- Verify every source. Claims are tied to sources for you to open and confirm. Do not cite anything until you have checked the source says what the report says.
- Verify papers before you cite them. The scholarly_search tool checks OpenAlex so a cited paper is real, but coverage is not exhaustive and metadata can lag. Open every source and confirm it says what the report says, and upload the papers for anything that must be complete and current.
- Not peer review or medical advice. This is analysis and synthesis for your own verification, not peer-reviewed fact or clinical guidance. Any health, safety, or regulated decision needs a qualified professional.
- Reproducibility is on you. The code_execution tool runs analysis in an isolated sandbox over the data files you upload, so results are computed rather than described. A clean run proves the code executed, not that the method is right, so read the code and reproduce anything you rely on.
This is research analysis and synthesis for your own verification, not peer-reviewed fact, clinical guidance, or medical advice. Every claim, citation, and figure must be checked against the primary source before you rely on it, and any health, safety, or otherwise regulated decision needs a qualified professional.
Frequently asked questions
- Is the AI research assistant free?
- Zeplik is free to start and every new account includes credits. Research skills run like any other Zeplik chat, so you spend only normal usage credits, with the cost shown before you send.
- Will it make up citations?
- It is built not to. It ties claims to sources you can open, prefers the material you upload, and when it cannot find support it says so rather than inventing a reference. You should still open every citation and confirm it before you cite it.
- Does it search live scholarly databases?
- Yes. The scholarly_search tool queries OpenAlex (over 240 million papers) to verify a real title, authors, year, venue, and DOI before a citation is made, and it returns an honest 'could not confirm' when nothing matches rather than inventing a reference. Coverage is not exhaustive, so upload the papers you want it fully grounded in.
- Can I use it for medical or clinical questions?
- It can draft clinical documents and summarize medical literature for your review, but it is not medical advice and not peer-reviewed fact. Any clinical, health, or safety decision must be made by a qualified professional.
- What kinds of research can it do?
- Sourced research reports, fact-checking, literature synthesis, methodology and study design, scientific writing and figures, scientific and quantum computing, and life-sciences toolkits for genomics, chemistry, and medical imaging.
- What do I need to give it?
- A clear question is enough to start. For grounded, checkable work, upload the papers, reports, or data you want it to use, and it will answer from them and cite back to the specific source.
More on Zeplik
Start a sourced research report
Ask a question or upload your sources and get a report, a fact-check, or a synthesis you can trace back to the source. Free to start, and honest about what to verify before you cite.