Skip to main content

Weave AI

Meet Weave AI

One intelligence, trained on neuroscience.

Reads the paper

First it works out what is actually in there

Ten readings that turn a manuscript into structure: the organism, the regions, the design, the techniques, the tests, the findings. Everything after this depends on getting this part right.

  • 01

    Keywords

    Pulls the terms that actually summarize the study, not the ones that happen to repeat most often. The list you would put on a submission form, or search to find this paper again a year from now.

  • 02

    MeSH terms

    Assigns the Medical Subject Headings a biomedical index would file the paper under, so the work is findable in the controlled vocabulary the field actually searches in rather than only in the words you happened to choose.

  • 03

    Species

    Names the organism the work was done in. It is the first thing a reader needs and one of the first things an abstract tends to leave out.

  • 04

    Brain regions

    Lists the areas the study investigates - and says plainly that no specific region is named, rather than inferring one from context.

  • 05

    Study type

    Classifies what kind of study this is, which sets the ceiling on what any result in it can support.

    • Randomized trial
    • Observational cohort
    • Animal model
    • Meta-analysis
  • 06

    Study design

    Determines how the work is structured. Design decides what a finding is allowed to mean long before the statistics are run, so this is the reading that everything downstream depends on.

    • Randomized
    • Observational
    • Longitudinal
    • Cross-sectional
    • Experimental
  • 07

    Level of analysis

    Places the work at the biological scale it was actually measured at.

    • Molecular
    • Cellular
    • Circuit
    • Systems
    • Behavioral
  • 08

    Methods

    Inventories every experimental technique the study applied, so a methods section becomes a list you can scan instead of prose you have to mine.

  • 09

    Statistical tests

    Identifies the tests and analyses the paper reports, named one by one.

  • 10

    Key findings

    States the main results the study reports, in the paper's own terms and without deciding yet whether they hold.

Writes about it

Then it puts the paper into words

Titles, summaries for three different audiences, the hypothesis, the figure plan, the skeleton of the argument. The writing you have to do anyway, started from what the paper already says.

  • 01

    Titles

    Writes alternative titles that reflect what the study actually found, so the decision becomes a choice between drafts rather than an afternoon.

    • Three options
  • 02

    One-line summary

    Compresses the whole paper into a single sentence, three ways.

    • Three variants
  • 03

    Plain language

    Rewrites the abstract for a reader outside the subfield: a grant panel, a press office, a collaborator in another discipline.

  • 04

    Why it matters

    Explains what changes because this work exists - the case you have to make in a cover letter and rarely get to make in the paper.

    • Novelty
    • Significance
    • Impact
  • 05

    Abstract polish

    Takes a rough description of what you did, in whatever words you had at the time, and turns it into a formal scientific abstract.

  • 06

    Hypothesis

    States the central hypothesis the study tested, which is not always the one the introduction says it set out to test.

  • 07

    Results summary

    Summarizes the results section on its own terms: what was found, held apart from what it was later claimed to mean.

  • 08

    IMRaD breakdown

    Splits the manuscript into its four sections, summarizes each, and scores how well they hold together - a paper can have four good sections and still not be one argument.

    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Coherence score
  • 09

    Figure plan

    Proposes a figure layout from the results: which figures the findings map to, and what belongs in each panel.

    • Figures
    • Panels
  • 10

    Paper skeleton

    Extracts the study's mechanistic structure end to end, so the whole argument fits on one screen.

    • Field
    • Subfield
    • Hypothesis
    • Findings
    • Conclusion
    • Causal strength
    • Limitations

Argues with it

Then it pushes back

Eleven analyses that treat the manuscript as a claim to be tested rather than a text to be summarized - the reading it will get from a referee, before it gets it from a referee.

  • 01

    Peer review

    Reads the whole paper the way a careful referee does: what the study claims, what it actually shows, and where the gap between the two sits. It separates the objections that would sink a submission from the ones an author can fix in a week, and it says where it would land.

    • Major concerns
    • Minor concerns
    • Missing controls
    • Statistical issues
    • Accept to reject
  • 02

    Claim consistency

    Walks every conclusion back to the result it rests on. A correlation quietly becoming a cause, a mechanism asserted from an association, a hedge that goes missing between the results and the abstract: it flags the sentence, not just the section.

    • Evidence match
    • Overclaim detection
    • Causal-inflation risk
  • 03

    Reproducibility

    Asks the only question that matters of a methods section: could another lab run this? It looks for procedural detail that is actually written down rather than implied, for data and code a reader can reach, and for whether randomization and blinding were reported at all.

    • Protocol clarity
    • Data and code
    • Randomization
    • Blinding
    • 0 to 10 score
  • 04

    Bias and confounds

    Design decides what a result can mean, long before the statistics do. This reads the study for the variables that travel with the effect, the population it was measured in, and the distance between who was studied and who the conclusion is written about.

    • Design biases
    • Confounds
    • Sex bias
    • Demographic reporting
    • Overgeneralization
  • 05

    Methods audit

    Inventories every technique the paper leans on and rates how rigorously each one was applied, not how confidently it was described. A method can be state of the art and still be run in a way that cannot carry the claim.

    • Imaging
    • Electrophysiology
    • Genetic tools
    • Assays
    • Statistics
    • Rigor rating
  • 06

    Specific aims

    Turns the paper you just read into the grant you have not written yet: the objective it implies, the hypothesis worth testing next, and three aims with the outcome each one would produce.

    • Objective
    • Central hypothesis
    • Three aims
    • Expected outcomes
    • Impact
  • 07

    Alternative mechanisms

    Names the explanations the authors did not test, weighs how plausible each one is, and pairs it with the experiment that would rule it out.

    • Competing mechanisms
    • Plausibility
    • Falsification test
  • 08

    Multi-level interpretation

    A finding rarely stops at the scale it was measured. This reads the result upward and downward, from molecules to behavior, so the implications land at every level the work touches.

    • Molecular
    • Cellular
    • Circuit
    • Systems
    • Behavioral
  • 09

    Field positioning

    Places the work in its literature: the subfield it speaks to, whether it confirms or unsettles the prevailing view, and the gap it fills.

    • Subfield
    • Paradigm status
    • Literature gap
  • 10

    Abstract gaps

    Reads an abstract for what is not in it, and names the details a reader needs before they can judge the work at all.

    • Species and strain
    • Sample size
    • Dosage
    • Remaining gaps
  • 11

    Hard negative

    Argues the most convincing wrong reading of the study, then takes it apart. If a result can be misread, it is better to see how here than in a review.

    • Plausible misreading
    • Why it fails
    • Correction

Weave for Word

Write submission-ready manuscripts.

Weave AI works where your manuscript is written. It checks your draft against the target journal's requirements, reviews it the way a referee would, and gives you a readiness score before you submit. Arriving late 2026.

Get early access

Security and data

Your manuscript stays yours

Weave AI reads your manuscript to run the analysis you asked for. That is the only thing that happens to it.

  • Never trained on. Your papers are not training data. Nothing you upload teaches the model anything.

  • Never sold or shared. Not to advertisers, not to data brokers, not to anyone. Your manuscript is not a product we have for sale.

  • Never read by us. No one at Weave opens, reviews or samples your manuscript.

  • Encrypted throughout. In transit and at rest, from the moment a file reaches us.

  • Yours to take back. Delete a manuscript and it is gone. Take your work back out whenever you want.

FAQ

Questions about Weave AI

What it is, where it runs, and what it does with your work.

What is Weave AI?

One research AI, built to understand neuroscience first. It reads a manuscript the way someone in the field would - working out what the study did, putting it into words, and then pushing back on it - and it runs underneath every Weave product rather than sitting in one of them.

Is Weave AI a separate product I sign up for?

No. It is the intelligence inside the products, not a product with a release date of its own. You meet it in Stream when it follows the literature, in Horizon while the manuscript is being written, in Atlas when you choose a journal, and in the Word add-in before you submit.

Does it work in fields other than neuroscience?

Not yet. We started with neuroscience because that is where we work, and Weave AI will learn one field at a time from there. If your field needs the same kind of reading, checking and drafting, tell us what it looks like - there is a form on the home page, and we read them.

Do you train on my papers?

No. Your papers are not training data, they are never sold or shared, and no one at Weave opens or reviews them. Manuscripts are encrypted in transit and at rest, and you can delete yours at any time.

Where can I use it today?

Weave Stream is live now, so the analyses that run in it are available now too. Weave Atlas arrives in September 2026, the Word add-in in late 2026, and Weave Horizon in early 2027.

Does it replace peer review?

No, and it is not trying to. What it gives you is the reading your paper would get from a careful referee, early enough that you can still do something about it. Every analysis is a draft for you to judge, argue with and throw out - the decisions stay yours.

Built to get you published.

Weave knows neuroscience and your research, so it finds the papers that matter, the journal that fits, and tells you when you're ready to submit.

Get started for free

No credit card.