Principles
Principles behind NeuroBriefer
I built NeuroBriefer because I wanted to spend more time reading papers and less time deciding which papers to read. These are the principles I want the tool to keep following.
Help researchers read better, not just consume more
The goal is not to create another endless feed. A useful literature tool should help researchers choose a manageable number of papers to read properly.
AI should support triage, not replace critical reading
Summaries can help decide what to open first. They should not replace reading methods, figures, limitations, and the original claims.
Researchers should stay in control
Keywords, feedback, favourites, notes, and collections should help the researcher shape the briefing. The tool should support judgment, not outsource it.
Be clear about limitations
Relevant papers can be missed, irrelevant papers can appear, and summaries can be wrong. NeuroBriefer should be honest about those limits.
Respect privacy
Research interests and notes are personal working material. They should be used to make recommendations more useful, not to build an advertising product.
Prefer useful recommendations over overwhelming feeds
A smaller list that can actually be reviewed is often better than a long list that sits unread.
Support open access where possible
When open access or full-text links are available, NeuroBriefer should make them easier to find while respecting publisher terms.
Keep NeuroBriefer accessible while possible
NeuroBriefer is currently free to use. The aim is to keep it accessible for researchers while building something sustainable.
Prefer credibility over conversion
The site should be honest about what NeuroBriefer can and cannot do. A researcher should not need marketing exaggeration to understand whether the tool is useful.
Avoid manipulative product design
NeuroBriefer should help researchers make better reading decisions, not pressure them into more clicks, more notifications, or more time in the app.
A practical note
NeuroBriefer should make the weekly literature problem feel more manageable, not make researchers feel behind. If it ever becomes another noisy inbox, it is not doing its job.