Before committing to a research idea you need two answers: how much of it has already been done, and who you need in order to finish it. KONSİL tests your idea against open scholarly data and returns both in a single report: the part that is already covered, the gap you can defend, and the team roles the study requires.
Apply for the closed beta See a sample report"Peer feedback beats instructor-only feedback" — a 2018 meta-analysis of 24 studies finds similar gains, confidence interval crossing zero.
No retrieved paper runs one randomised trial across several universities with blinded rubric scoring. The study is framed as a new question.
4 roles · 12 candidates · 6 countries
Strong field match · reachability high · fit 94/100 · Middle East Technical University
Two or three sentences are enough, in your own language. No protocol, no draft, no reference list required.
It finds related work and separates what is already covered. In the same run it drafts a protocol, computes sample size scenarios and assembles candidate researchers for each role from open publication data.
Every claim carries the paper it rests on. Numbers that cannot be derived from the literature are not invented; the report marks them as yours to justify.
What KONSİL is not: it does not hand you a finished ethics application; it produces a draft and marks what must be verified. It does not replace your statistician: when a parameter cannot be derived from the literature it asks you for it instead of inventing one. And a candidate list is not a promise. It lets you start knowing who to write to, why, and in which language.
Anyone who wants to test a new idea against the literature before spending weeks on it, in any discipline.
People who want to see what is already covered and what is missing before taking a thesis or project idea to a supervisor.
Anyone looking for a partner at another institution or in another discipline for a multi-site study.
It follows one real idea: structured peer feedback versus instructor-only feedback in large online university courses. 14 queries, 83 source records, 75 abstracts: the idea was found partially novel within the scope of the screen, one claim met a 2018 meta-analysis, the gap was stated and four roles with twelve candidates were produced. The numbers are real; the candidates are masked.
Read the sample reportEach step consults its own sources and hands its output to the next. The novelty step is not there to support your idea, but to try to break it.
Closed beta: 20 places
We review applications in the order they arrive and reply by email within 24 hours. We look at three things: that there is a real research idea, that field and career stage are stated, and that you send a short round of feedback after the report.
How to do by hand what KONSİL automates. Useful whether or not you use the product.
Define the role, assess candidates from the publication record, write a first email that gets a reply.
Break the idea into components, search the right sources, stop treating absence as evidence.
Five kinds of gap, four false ones, and a three-sentence gap statement.
Site selection, protocol clarity, ethics sequencing, a shared data dictionary, authorship rules.
Precision vs power, the prevalence step, McNemar's discordant pairs and verification bias.
d, dz and f in plain language; why n explodes below 0.4; four defensible sources for your number.
Dropout inflation, the multiplicity price, ANCOVA's discount and reverse power — all with computed numbers.
The 14 roles in plain language, a worked statement, and the mistakes reviewers notice.
Which committee, the 17 sections, sample-size justification and the most common rejection reasons.
Quartile and APC tables, predatory checks, national platforms and desk-rejection fixes.
A five-step walkthrough with screenshots, visibility settings and record-filling tips.
Short answer: yes — decision tree, consent-waiver conditions and what boards ask for.
Matching rests on the publication record and the ORCID iD is its common key. Ownership of the iD is not technically verified at present; the account is protected by an invitation code and a local password. If you do not have one, orcid.org issues it free in a few minutes.
Not right now. We charge nothing during the closed beta; when a paid version opens, beta participants hear about it first.
Yes. The evidence sources cover all disciplines, and the sample report happens to be a clinical one because it came from a real run. Idea, gap and team logic are the same in engineering, social sciences or the humanities.
Your idea text is processed only to produce your own report. Candidate lists come from publication data that is already public. Details are in the privacy notice.
KONSİL