Why build it?
A trainee can have a good idea and still lose weeks figuring out whether it is novel, how to frame the study, what data to collect, how to structure a manuscript, and where to submit it. Those decisions are connected, but most tools treat them as separate problems.
ScholarRounds aims to make the workflow explicit: define the question, explore prior work, choose a defensible design, plan variables and outcomes, write clearly, select a legitimate journal, and respond efficiently when publication does not go perfectly the first time.
What is live now?
The launch version includes structured research-question building, PubMed novelty-search planning, a study-design starting framework, manuscript checklists, a curated PubMed journal finder, journal profiles, and presubmission-inquiry generation. These tools are intentionally transparent about what they can and cannot infer.
What is not yet automated?
ScholarRounds does not currently claim to perform a live systematic novelty assessment, statistical analysis, IRB determination, or guaranteed publication prediction. Those require source retrieval, project-specific context, or expert review. Future modules should add those capabilities only when they can be implemented responsibly.
Principles
- Fit over fake precision: no fabricated acceptance probabilities.
- Sources over opaque claims: journal data should link back to verifiable sources.
- Workflow over one-off prompts: each stage should feed the next.
- Free first: build usefulness and traffic before charging researchers for core access.
- Editorial independence: sponsorship never changes journal rankings.