Two research workflows,
one grounded workspace.
Lit Mind Maps helps scholars do two things well: generate grounded literature reviews and surface research gaps. The platform uses Semantic Scholar metadata throughout the workflow, then reasons over abstracts to produce transparent, citable outputs you can inspect.
Ask in plain English
“What drives employee burnout in remote teams?” — no Boolean syntax needed.
Screen on mind maps
We cluster real results into concepts, then by method. You tick what's in scope — last‑10‑years, peer‑reviewed, quality journals only.
Grounded synthesis
A themed review with consensus, tensions, and gaps — each claim is grounded in abstracts and cited (Author Year) to a paper you chose.
Gap maps & exports
Switch from literature review to Gap Finder, inspect visual maps, then print to PDF or download as Word when you're ready to share.
Choose the workflow that fits your question
Start with the service you need, then move smoothly between literature review and research-gap discovery from one account home.
Literature Review
Search, screen, and synthesize a focused review from real papers with transparent inclusion logic and structured citations.
Gap Finder
Cluster recent papers into subtopics and uncover under-studied combinations worth turning into your next study.
One smooth workspace
Return to your user home to jump into either service or reopen your latest outputs without losing context.
Built for rigour, not guesswork
Generic chatbots invent citations. Manual reviews take weeks. Lit Mind Maps gives you the speed of AI with the discipline of a systematic review and the visibility of a gap-mapping workflow.
Real papers only
Sourced live from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph — titles, authors, venues, years, and abstracts feed the analysis end to end.
PRISMA‑style transparency
A funnel diagram shows exactly how thousands of records narrowed to your final set — and what was excluded, and why.
Interactive mind‑map screening
Choose your concepts and methods visually. You decide what's in scope, so the review is actually about your question.
Quality filters by default
Last 10 years, named authors, peer‑reviewed journals, Scimago Q1–Q3 — junk and predatory venues filtered out automatically.
Visual everything
Per‑section concept maps, a chronology of the field, and gap‑driven research questions you can build a thesis on.
Submission‑ready output
Chicago author‑date citations and an alphabetised reference list. Print to PDF or download an editable Word file.
Why scholars choose Lit Mind Maps
The honest middle ground between a weekend lost to databases and a chatbot you can't trust.
| What matters | Generic AI chat | Manual review | Lit Mind Maps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citations are real | ✗ often fabricated | ✓ | ✓ verified via Semantic Scholar |
| Time to first draft | minutes | days–weeks | minutes |
| You control what's included | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ mind‑map screening |
| Transparent inclusion/exclusion | ✗ | manual | ✓ PRISMA funnel |
| Quality‑filtered sources | ✗ | manual | ✓ automatic |
| Gaps → research questions | sometimes | manual | ✓ proposed for you |
Start your literature review now
Free to explore and generate. Your first 2 report exports (Print to PDF or Download as Word) are completely free — no credit card needed.
Create my free account