Write a Deep Research Report

Literature discovery, evidence checking, citation integrity and synthesis into a defensible report.

This workflow produces a deep research report that is comprehensive, evidence-backed, and defensible. You start by mapping the broad landscape with Perplexity, then drill into specific papers with Elicit, cross-check findings against peer-reviewed evidence via Consensus, verify citation integrity with scite, organize and summarize your materials in NotebookLM, and finally synthesize everything into a polished, nuanced report using Claude. Each tool fills a distinct gap—Perplexity for scope, Elicit for paper discovery, Consensus for rigor, scite for citation trust, NotebookLM for structured synthesis, and Claude for final reasoning and writing. This combination ensures you don't just collect sources but critically evaluate and weave them together. It's designed for researchers, analysts, and students who need a reliable, well-cited report they can defend.

The workflow, step by step

1
Map the research landscape
Use Perplexity to get a quick, cited overview of your topic, including key debates and landmark studies. Its deep reports and web searches surface diverse sources in one go, saving you hours of manual searching.
Hand-off → Carry forward a curated list of key questions, relevant sub-topics, and initial citations (URLs) to guide deeper exploration.
2
Find and extract from academic papers
Elicit
Elicit searches semantic scholar’s database to find papers directly relevant to your questions, extracts key data like sample sizes and outcomes, and summarizes findings. It goes beyond web results to peer-reviewed literature, which Perplexity may miss.
Hand-off → Export a set of relevant paper titles, abstracts, and extracted data (e.g., key statistics) for evidence verification.
3
Verify evidence with peer-reviewed sources
Consensus
Consensus focuses solely on top journals and shows the consensus or disagreement in the literature. Use it to confirm whether the claims from earlier steps are supported by strong evidence, adding authority to your report.
Hand-off → A list of verified claims, each tagged with the consensus sentiment (supportive, mixed, or contradictory) and citations from reputable journals.
4
Check citation integrity
scite
scite shows how each paper’s claims have been cited by others (supporting, contrasting, or mentioning). This step prevents you from repeating overblown or refuted findings, a common pitfall in deep research.
Hand-off → For each key citation, a classification of its reception (e.g., 'cited 15 times, 12 supporting, 3 contrasting') to use in weighing evidence.
5
Organize and synthesize notes
NotebookLM
Upload all your sources (PDFs, notes, citations) into NotebookLM. It grounds answers only in your material, creates an organized notebook, and can generate an audio summary for review. This step brings everything together in one place before writing.
Hand-off → A structured notebook with source summaries, key quotes, your own notes, and an optional audio overview to revisit main points.
6
Draft and refine the report
Claude
Claude handles long contexts and nuanced reasoning, making it ideal for synthesizing all your curated materials into a coherent, defensible report. Use its chat to build an outline, draft sections, and refine language while keeping citations intact.

$20/mo Pro

Frequently asked questions

How much does this full tool stack cost?

The stack includes free tiers (Elicit, Consensus, NotebookLM, and a limited Perplexity) and paid tools (scite and Claude). Running the full workflow with free tiers alone is possible but limited; expect ~$20–$40/month for paid accounts if you need higher usage. Start with free trials and upgrade as needed.

Can I replace any tools with free alternatives?

Yes. For Perplexity, use free web search with ChatGPT or Google Scholar. Elicit’s free tier gives limited searches; Semantic Scholar can substitute but lacks data extraction. Consensus is free for basic use. NotebookLM is free. scite has a free browser extension but limited details; Google Scholar’s citation count can partially replace it. Claude’s free tier exists but is rate-limited.

Where should I start if I’m new to AI research tools?

Begin with Perplexity to define your topic and get initial leads. Then move to Elicit to find papers. That alone gives a huge head start. Add Consensus and scite only when you need rigorous evidence verification. Finally, use NotebookLM and Claude to assemble the report.

What common mistakes should I avoid?

Don’t skip citation verification (scite) or evidence checking (Consensus) — it’s easy to repeat unsubstantiated claims. Also avoid overloading Claude with unorganized materials; use NotebookLM to structure your notes first. Finally, always double-check AI-generated citations against original sources, as errors can occur.

Can this workflow handle non-English research?

Most of these tools work best with English sources. Elicit and Consensus primarily index English-language papers. Perplexity and NotebookLM handle multiple languages but may be less accurate. For non-English research, you may need to supplement with language-specific databases.