Find the research that matters. See it as it is.

New papers come to you. Instead of running the same search every week, you set a topic once and Novasieve keeps checking for you.

Create a topic with a few keywords. Novasieve gathers recent papers on a schedule and collects them into a digest you can open any time.

A topic can be limited to a kind of work — reviews when you want the field summarised, or research articles when you want the primary record. Only OpenAlex records what kind of thing a paper is, so while that filter is on the other sources pause, and Novasieve names which ones. Fewer results that mean what they say.

One search reaches across a dozen scholarly sources, so you're not hopping between databases to be sure you haven't missed something.

Type a query and browse the results. Each is marked High, Medium, or Low relevance — an honest band, not a made-up match percentage.

The papers you'll return to, saved and searchable — not lost in a browser tab or a folder of downloads.

Choose Add to library on any paper in any list. Have a reference already? Add it by its DOI and Novasieve fills in the details for you.

Get a paper's key details as tidy, reliable fields — title, authors, journal, year, DOI — ready to scan or reuse, with no AI paraphrase in between.

Open a paper's data view. Every field is pulled straight from the source record, so what you copy is what was actually published.

Judge a paper's context before you invest in it: the institutions behind it, the countries and funders involved, and how much it's been cited.

Open Research origin on any paper. Citation figures come from an open database and are labelled as such — we never show a licensed impact factor we can't stand behind.

A paper marked Paid usually isn't paid for by you — your institution has very likely already bought it. Instead of ending the trail at a paywall, Novasieve can hand the citation to your own library and let it open the door.

Open Edit profile and fill in Library link resolver with your institution's resolver address — something shaped like https://your-library.edu/openurl. Paywalled papers then carry a Get it via your library link that takes you to your library's own record for that paper. Not sure of the address? Search your library's site for “link resolver” or “OpenURL”, or ask a librarian — they will know it immediately.

This is the OpenURL standard (ANSI/NISO Z39.88-2004), so it works with the resolvers institutions already run — SFX, Alma / Primo, WorldCat, 360 Link — rather than only the ones we have integrated with. The address must start with https, because it carries which paper you are trying to read and that is nobody else's business on the way. The link is offered only on papers that are not already free — when an open-access copy exists it wins, being fewer clicks and no login.

Be told when a new paper lands on a topic you follow, when a paper you're watching gets cited, or when one is corrected or retracted — so you're never citing stale work.

Turn on notifications in your inbox. Email alerts are yours to switch on and are off by default — you decide what reaches your inbox.

See journals that genuinely publish work like yours, with free-to-publish options sorted to the top so cost never sneaks up on you.

Paste your abstract or keywords. Each suggested journal shows a Fit figure — a ratio of real publication counts, not a model's opinion — and whether it's open-access or subscription.

Track down scholars in your area — potential collaborators, reviewers, or the authority on a method — even when they don't have an ORCID.

Search by name, topic, or institution, then refine by field or UN Sustainable Development Goal. Every researcher is reachable through their public profile; an ORCID is a bonus, never a requirement.

Your lab shares one set of topics, one library, and one thread of comments — no more forwarding links or rebuilding each other's searches.

Create a team, invite your members, and share topics or papers. Comments let you discuss a paper in place, right where the group is already working.

Teams are part of Pro. Every member needs Pro of their own or one of the team’s paid seats, which the team’s owner buys under Team seats. A paid seat gives that member everything Pro gives, for as long as they hold it; when it ends they return to Free, or to their own Pro.

A lab is rarely working on one thing. Subgroups let Methanotrophs, Sequence pipelines and Field data each keep their own papers and their own discussion, so nobody wades through three projects' worth of updates to find their own. You can belong to as many as you like, or none.

Inside a team, create a subgroup and choose who can join it: Open (any lab member walks in), Restricted (visible to the lab, but a lead approves who joins), or Private (hidden from everyone except its members). Whoever creates a subgroup leads it, and leads can hand that role to anyone else.

The subgroup bar switches you between projects in one click and shows what is new in each. For any open subgroup you choose how you take part: Active to post and share, Observing to follow the reading without joining the conversation, or Muted to stay a member and stop being notified. Muting never changes what you are allowed to do — a muted lead is still a lead.

A subgroup's papers and comments are visible only to people entitled to see them, and that is enforced by the database rather than by hiding things in the interface. The team's main feed stays available for anything the whole lab should see. Joining a subgroup does not mark its whole history unread — you start from the day you join.

Going through a digest is a three-way decision, not a two-way one: read now, read later, or discard. Without a middle option everything you meant to come back to gets saved alongside everything you decided to keep, and the distinction you were drawing disappears.

Each paper offers Save, Screen later and Not relevant. The screen-later pile has its own count and its own view, so it is a place you can return to rather than a note to yourself.

A deferred paper counts as not yet screened, so it never appears as included or excluded in a PRISMA diagram, and review exports carry no verdict for it. That is what it is.

A systematic review usually wants two people screening independently, and a number for how often they agreed. That number only means something if neither could see the other's calls.

On a topic shared with a team, the reader who created it turns on Dual review and chooses the subgroup that adjudicates. Its members screen as usual and cannot see each other's decisions. A lead of that subgroup sees Agreement between reviewers: Cohen's κ and the papers judged differently, with the reviewers shown as Reviewer A and Reviewer B.

The lead must not have screened the topic. One recorded decision, even Screen later, hides the reviewers' decisions until it is withdrawn, which keeps the review blind. The lead can read but never change anyone's call, and there is not yet a place to record an agreed consensus verdict: PRISMA and the exports count each reader's own decisions.

A few of the right researchers surface most of what matters in a field, without the flood a broad keyword produces. You already knew whose work to read; now you do not have to go looking for it.

Open a researcher and choose Follow. When they publish, it arrives in your notifications. Following means “tell me what they do next” — it will not fill your inbox with a thirty-year back catalogue.

When you have an hour rather than a morning, the useful question is not “what is new” but “what is moving”. A paper picking up citations quickly is often worth the hour ahead of a newer one that is not.

Below your feed, papers from every topic you watch are ranked by citations gained per week. It measures speed, not size, so a smaller paper climbing beats a famous one standing still.

Speed needs a paper to have been read twice, so a newly watched topic has little to show at first — the panel says how much it can measure rather than implying nothing is happening. Rate is raw, and fields cite at very different speeds, so the field-comparison chip beside a paper is what makes a slow-field result legible next to a fast-field one.

In a group, the way reading stays manageable is that each person owns a narrow area. The thing no lab can see unaided is the area everyone assumed someone else had.

Each subgroup can name who is watching it, and the panel leads with the areas nobody is — plus a warning when one person is carrying too many. Naming a watcher records accountability only; it does not change what anyone can see or do.

When you share a paper with your team you can add a sentence on why it matters and a suggested next step — read it, try the method, cite it, or bring it to a meeting. The sentence is yours: Novasieve never writes it for you, because what your colleagues need is your judgement, which is the one thing a machine cannot supply.

Move your reading into a manuscript, a reference manager, or a spreadsheet without retyping a thing.

Export citations in common styles or as structured data. We label formatted citations approximate — always give them a final check before submission.